Rhetorical Analysis Of 'Tarmageddon' By Andrew Nikiforuk

Is Canada failing to be the innocent nation it is often portrayed as? Award winning journalist, Andrew Nikiforuk, wrote “Tarmageddon: Dirty oil is turning Canada into a corrupt petro-state”, published in CCPA Monitor in 2010. This environmental article set out to convince the general public that the tar sands are changing Canada for the worst. The article begins by explaining the different environmental effects that have been observed since the project started. With such detrimental results the article moves into what the politicians are doing to help the issue, which at this time was nothing. Lastly, the article goes over the economic aspect of the situation with the subject of temporary foreign workers. Andrew believes that the worlds largest

energy project, the tar sands, has not only lowered Canada’s environmental reputation but also put its political and economical aspects into question. Throughout his article Andrew has demonstrated thoughtful insight with many examples of logos, ethos, and pathos, resulting in a well written and very persuasive report
Andrew provides facts and statistics to support his opinion that tar sands are ruining the outlook of Canada’s economic, political and environmental aspects. His first example of logos that questions the economic idea is when he highlights the cost of producing bitumen in comparison to other crude. Bitumen costs an astounding “$60-$80 a barrel” (188) compared to “US domestic crude [that] can be produced at $10 a barrel.” (188) Next he acknowledges politics where he makes comments about the Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, denying the reality of climate change (189). Lastly, logos about the environment is considered. He states that “1.4 million hectares of forest” (188) have been industrialized to create more open pit mines which will have very negative environmental feedback. A downfall within this article occurs with this great amount of information. The article short so some of the arguments do not get supported as well as they could. It can also be overwhelming for the reader to grasp the main idea of every topic because it changes so quickly. There are many examples of facts and statistics to back up Andrew’s opinion when discussing the economic, political and environmental outlooks of Canada.
Often when there is a great deal of logos within a piece of work, ethos is right beside it.

Andrew appears to prove that within his article. For starters he is a well known journalist focusing on environmental or oil issues. This information however is not stated within the article. Instead of using himself as ethos, he finds other sources that are well known. First he states “Nowadays, Canada is, as one Toronto Star columnist pointedly put it, ‘a nation that doesn’t say much, doesn’t do much, and doesn’t seem to stand for much.’” (188) This argument proves that he is not alone with this opinion, the well respected Toronto Star also agrees. Another example of ethos in his article is “the U.S. National Energy Technology Laboratory, for instance, recently calculated that jet fuel made from bitumen has a carbon footprint 244 per cent greater than fuel made from US domestic crude.” (188) Which brings into account a study that a well known laboratory has done to prove argument. Nikiforuk provides many references within his work to show his credibility and provide ethos. This however seems to be forgotten in a few of his examples where he does not cite where he received the information. This may cause him to lose some creditability with certain

readers.
Lastly, Pathos is largely included within Andrews argument, the two main emotions he evokes are fear and national pride. He brings up phrases such as “toxic waste”, “fish-killers”, or “cancer makers” (189) which cause the reader to be scared of what the oil companies are doing. National pride is questioned when he continually compares Canada with Saudi Arabia or when he makes the reader feel disgust because the country is being “blackened” (188). Pathos is brought up over and over again throughout the article to make the reader feel something and gain support.
Nikiforuk obviously believes that the tar sands in Alberta are ruining Canada. That they are putting the environmental, political, and economical views into a place of doubt or question. Although there are a few minor flaws that could have made this article easier and more reliable for every reader the end results are great. The author makes a strong, logical argument about this subject and has many good, solid examples of logos, ethos, and pathos to support his opinion.