Whether we realize it or not, we all make an impact on the world through our consumption of materials. In the article “The Year Without Toilet Paper,” published in 2007 in The New York Times, author Penelope Green describes the lifestyle experiment called No Impact. Although Green concluded that the project may appear outlandish, she acknowledged the cause of the experiment. She depicted the Beavan-Conlin family as a foil to the common people throughout her article to show the importance of the family’s efforts. Lastly, Green used logos from the title through to the closing statement to emphasize the cause behind the experiment. No Impact was on the account of Colin Beavan, Michelle Conlin and their 2-year-old daughter’s life of eco-extremism: forgoing toilet paper, buying organic grown food 250 miles of Manhattan, and abstaining from the use of the television, the elevator, incandescent light, dishwasher, coffee maker, or any form of carbon-fueled transportation. Green concluded that the project “may seem at best like a scene from an old-fashioned situation comedy and, at worst, an ethically murky exercise in self-promotion” (Green). She sprinkled personal comments throughout in a quizzical and condescending …show more content…
tone to express the absurdity regarding the extreme measures that the family was willing to subject themselves to for this experiment. In her article, Green used foil based on the comparison of the Beavan-Colin family in contrast to the common people.
Green reported the acts she witnessed with precise journalistic detachment. “A visitor avoided the bathroom because she knew she would find no toilet paper there… giving up toilet paper seems a fairly profound gesture of commitment” (Green). She indicated the difference between the Beavan-Colin family from the common people by stating their commitment to giving up toilet paper, which may be considered extreme for the common people. Her use of foil enhanced the importance of the Beavan-Colin family along with their cause by displaying how much effort the family was willing to make to improve the environment in contrast to the common
people. Along with the strong use of foil, Green effectively made appeals to logos from the beginning of article’s title to the end of the closing statement. The title of the article entices the reader to read further due to its profound description while the closing statement of the article ends with Green quoting Mr. Beavan stating the cause. “I’m just trying to put that energy to good use” (Green). Green incorporated logos by showing the reader the justification of the family’s one year of abstinence to toilet paper. This action appeals to logic by showing how people can use things that they already have to help improve their environmental impact. In summary, Green emphasized the cause behind No Impact through her usage of logos in her title all the way to the closing statement. Her article displayed how the Beavan-Conlin family is a foil to the common people. This article made me realize how most individuals can consume material more efficiently. Green’s article shows the importance of believing in the things one can do to make a positive impact.
A similar message that appears in his book that appeared in the aforementioned speech was the impact of the media speculation. The book addresses this in two examples. One was presented with the news of a lawsuit that an island called Vantu would file against the EPA; yet the lawsuit would never move forward due to it only serving a purpose to launder money and raise awareness to global warming that was never proven to affect the island. The other was shown to be environmental scientist who received their funding from environmental organizations, such as NERF in the book. These scientists would often have to go against their findings and report what the organizations wanted them to, or possibly lose their funding. Additionally, the book profoundly took opposition to the claim of global warming. This is presented in the form of the main character, Peter Evans, who has been manipulated into believing everything that the media has told him about global warming. It isn’t until John Kenner is introduced, that Peter begins got learn the truth about global warming. The author uses specific evidence to back his claims, specifically he uses a wide array of resources to verify his claim that Antarctica is not in fact melting, but getting colder and thickening. Furthermore, another essential concept that that book introduces is environmental extremists, or bioterrorism. These characters in the book would stop at nothing to make sure that everyone believed in global warming, and tried to destroy parts of the world to succeed in their mission. Bioterrorists are best represented as a warning of what could happen if people continue to buy into the media’s lies without having conclusive evidence to back up their
“Thoughts in the Presence of Fear” is a manifesto written by Wendell Berry, dated October 11, 2001. It is a post-September 11 manifesto for environmentalists. Berry uses terms such as “we” and “they” as he expresses his ideas, regarding how our optimism for a “new economy” was founded upon the labors of poor people all over the world. I will conduct a rhetorical analysis of four sections of Berry’s manifesto; Sections XI, XII, XIII, and XIV; and discuss his use of ethos, logos, and pathos. Berry uses pathos more often in his paper, to instill feelings of guilt and fear in his readers. While many areas of his paper can be thought of as logos, Berry makes little use of ethos.
In “The Yellow Wallpaper,” Gilman recounts, by means of Jane’s journal, the story of Jane and her husband John, following the birth of their baby. Like Gilman, Jane suffers from post-partum depression, and, her husband, who is a physician, locks her in the nursery on the top floor of their summer home. After the first few weeks of her summer in isolation, Jane hides her journal, which contains her true thoughts, so that John will be unaware of...
He compares moral annoyance on to an “apocalyptic fear-mongering that previously took the shape of repent or burn in hell, but now it is recycle or burn in the ozone hole” (27). Asma uses metaphors to mock the comparison between religion versus environmentalism. His article advocates for an ideology that is not as dominated by these feelings of guilt and believes that we should “lighten our fervor to more reasonable levels.” Asma’s comparison to religious extremities and environmentalism creates diction among what the audience may value or not agree with. By pursuing such controversy, Asma’s points of view allow the audience to take thought on the parallels between their aggression and self-reflection, as well as the green marketing ploys made to persuade the members of the modern society. Throughout Asma’s argument, he frequently uses a diction to lead to the humorous tone of his submissive counterargument. He mentions that we may not be able to punch the people we want to punch in real life, so we turn our aggression to the retrobates of TV land. Comparing a “joyful hatred” to such TV shows may justify the defense of our own “virtue and orthodoxy”. The diction created by the specific word choice allows the diction to affect the overall tone of the article -- satirical with a slight serious approach. If he were to use different words, it would be less effective. His metaphorical explanation also appeals to pathos because it represents another set of emotional feelings the audience feels. By mentioning the common appeal to modernized television, Asma enables the audience to connect on a personal level to a controversy that is not related to environmentalism, but is similar in a way that it makes everyone feeling guilty all feel the
The beginning paragraph is what draws many readers to Quammen’s article. He begins with statements implying that environmentalism is a bad thing altogether. For those who are truly against environmental protection, this is an eye-catching statement. They will want to
Graham Hill, an entrepreneur that values environmental sustainability, narrates his negative experiences with consumerism after selling an internet consultant company, for so much money that it made his head spin, in “Living With Less. A Lot Less.” He begins by talking about his current minimalist lifestyle, and then jumps back in time to the late ‘90s, right after he sold his business. He claims that the stuff he bought with his newfound wealth seemed to be controlling his life, and that he became more stressed out as time went on.
Bill McKibben's "The Environmental Issue from Hell" argues that climate change is a real and dire concern for humanity. His essay deals with the methods and persuasive arguments needed to spur American citizens and the government on to change to more eco-friendly choices. The arguments he proposes are based largely upon emotional appeals calling for empathy and shame, and examples of what in our daily lives is adding to the changes we're seeing in the climate.
Ehrlich, P. R., & Ehrlich, A. H. (1996). Betrayal of science and reason: How anti-environmental rhetoric threatens our future. Washington, D.C: Island Press.
Charlotte Perkins Gilman uses her short story “The Yellow Wallpaper” to express her opinions about feminism and originality. Gilman does so by taking the reader through the terrors of one woman's psychological disorder, her entire mental state characterized by her encounters with the wallpaper in her room. She incorporates imagery and symbolism to show how confined the narrator is because of her gender and mental illness.
Racism is commonly thought of as an act that is synonymous with violence; however, one common form of racism, environmental racism, often takes place without people being aware the events are happening before detrimental activities have been put into action. In Melissa Checker’s book Polluted Promises, she relates that Reverend Dr. Benjamin F. Chavis Jr. coined the term environmental racism while stating that there is “deliberate targeting of communities of color for toxic waste disposal and the siting of polluting industries” (Checker 14). This problem is important to discuss, as many groups of people around the United States continue to be impacted by these events every day. Such people include
Waste Not, Want Not: if you use a resource carefully and without extravagance, you will never be in need. In a 2009 essay, “Waste Not, Want Not”, writer Bill McKibben argues on the excess of unnecessary waste. To halt climate change, he proposes to convince the reader to shift priorities in waste management and go back to the frugality of simpler times. Bill approaches his argument with a vast amount of informative charged words to convince the reader into taking his side of the argument. The writer’s intended purpose in writing this piece is to make a statement and develop his argument against the unnecessary waste. To make this argument effective, the writer utilizes logic to persuade the audience with overwhelming data and reason. His primary instrument of choice in this essay is using logically charged words followed by factual evidence to back up his claims. Although his use of emotion and pathos are less obvious, but where used, is effective.
Living off the grid is slowly becoming more prevalent, and there are a growing number of people embracing this lifestyle because they desire to live The Good Life. Many are discovering ways to appreciate off-grid living, rather than assessing the disadvantages of it. It is obvious that people are removing themselves from the grid in order to combat global warming and climate change, but those who have a stronger appreciation for nature are willing to make sacrifices to live off the grid. People who have a positive attitude toward this way of living are more likely to relate it to pursuing the Good Life. Even though “living completely off the grid isn’t for everyone,” those who dream of living a sustainable lifestyle are determined and fully committed to doing so (Bodkins 1). A vast majority of people dream of becoming wealthy and living lavishly, but that dream does not appeal to everyone. Some people are content without owning a mansion, multiple cars, or earning millions of dollars. Things of monetary worth are not important to those ...
Subpoint A: Not long ago, a documentary film called “An Inconvenient truth” came out in 2006. This film raised international public awareness of climate change and reenergizing the environmental movement. A former U.S Vice president Al Gore campaigned to educate citizens about global warming through a simp...
The single most important environmental issue today is over-consumerism, which leads to excess waste. We buy too much. We think we always need new and better stuff. Will we ever be satisfied? There will always be something better or cooler on the market. Because we live in a capitalistic consumer culture, we have absorbed things like: “Get it while the getting’s good,” “Offer ends soon, buy while it lasts,” “For great deals, come on down…Sunday Sunday Sunday!” We, kids from 1 to 92, have become saturated with commercials like: Obey your thirst. How much of our consumption is compulsive buying, merely obeying our momentary thirst? Do we actually need all that we buy? Could we survive efficiently, even happily, without making so many shopping center runs? Once after I made a Target run with mom, I noticed that most of the bulkiness within my plastic bags with red targets symbols on them was made up of the products’ packaging. I then thought about all the bags that were piled on the floor near us…all of the bags piled on the floors of many homes throughout America daily.
People should know the negative impact throwing away a water bottle or newspaper, purchasing meat from the grocery store or consuming gasoline has on the environment, and many do not. By informing society about how their decisions affect the environment, we can help save our planet and change our attitude toward the land we live on, the water we drink and the air we breathe” and truly show respect for the stuff that we depend on. The United States produces “about 8.25 billion tons of solid waste each year” (Russell 1). People do not realize the impact they have on our planet and the environment. When people throw anything in the trashcan, they are contributing to the destruction of our planet.