Survival of the Richest 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. Blumenfield starts his essay on a good note with a Cree Proverb, “"Only after the last tree has been cut down, only after the last river has been poisoned, only after the last fish has been caught, only then will you learn that you cannot eat money," in a successful attempt to …show more content…
He assails the very group of people he is trying to change the actions of. There is a lack of logos, which weakens his argument and makes it hard to validify as truth. It poses a lot of question that do not get answered. There is a lack of detail surrounding his claims. His argument is effective at shifting blame to one source and straying away from the true topic at hand: Social justice and environmental justice can work cooperatively, but there are certain institutions extending apathy standing in the way. With what he is trying to convey, he relied too heavily on his emotions, leaving his argument
Jobs and protecting the environment, important or not? George Will wrote his essay, “What Price Clean Air?” to convey the message that most of the Navajo Nation run and work at the power plants in Arizona, but as the growing change in protecting the environment, those Native Americans are forced to alter their livelihoods. George Will directs his essay to the American people, to persuade them to help find a change. Using the best equipment and spending billions of dollars on new technology may be affected by the uncertain environmental movement. With ethos, logos, and pathos, George Will effectively uses the rhetorical devices to convey his argument about the social and economic damage brought on by the federal government.
In the book, Future Of Life (2002), Edward O. Wilson, satirizes and jokes about how childish and unsophisticated arguments are such as those between the People-First Critics and Environmentalist. The results of this book is to showcase how these arguments lead to nowhere and Wilson presents this information by satirically mocking both sides of the argument with exaggeration, sarcasm and hyperboles.
Environmental justice links a number of social movements—anti-racism, Aboriginals rights, and the mainstream environmental movement—and addresses the problem of environmental racism (Gosine & Teelucksignh, 2008, p. 11). The concept of environmental justice in the U.S was associated with the struggles over toxic waste sites and the call for equal treatment of all communities, radicalized or not (p. 9). It was about looking at human health rather than preserving areas deemed as “playgrounds for the rich.”
The subject of environmentalists is one that is just asking for a series of childish bickering amongst fully grown adults. No one can ever agree to disagree because everyone wants to be right. Of course, that is impossible, but God forbid that people just come to a reasonable agreement to leave opinions as they are, opinions. Mr. Edward O. Wilson does a very good job illustrating how pointless these political arguments are. How does he do this? He simply writes his own passages, setting himself in the shoes of both of the opposing parties.
With the well-being of future generations in mind, environmental concerns have begun to establish a permanent residence atop the priority ladder for a vast array of Americans. Consequently, writers and political pundits alike are seizing this opportunity to capitalize on advocating their stance on the issue. Information, representing all positions, pours in at an unrelenting and unfathomable rate. For the average American it can be an arduous process sifting through all the rhetoric in attempt to find the real truth regarding our impact as humans on the environment; one such example is Susan Brown’s article The EPA’s Mercury Problem. In this article Brown attempts to expose hypocrisy among progressives by paralleling the Environmental Protection
The concept of social justice, and the environment have always been under great threat. However is it possible to mend the two, combine them together, in order to create an equal atmosphere and a sustainable society? The majority of the population have always wanted to prevent the minority in gaining their rights in fear of losing their power, and the nature conquerors have disregarded the wilderness’ needs in fear of losing their profit. Environmental activists and advocates have sought to bridge the gap between the complicated and divisive relationship between the natural world and the advancing technological world. Rebecca Solnit, Wendell Berry, and John Muir all recognize the explicit relationship between social justice and the respect for the natural world.
In the book The Future of Life, author Edward O. Wilson highlights the ineffective nature of the debates between the two side of environmentalism. He achieves this by pointing out parallels and similarities of the language between two sides in the satirical piece.
The 1970’s represent a pivotal point in history that rewrote how America viewed its environmental policies- both on a policymaker and citizen scientist standpoint. As the public became more aware of environmental issues, concern about pollution, improper disposal, dwindling resources, radiation and poisoning enraptured a growing number of supporters. These supporters made it so that unlike the Progressive Era’s conservation movement (1890’s-1920’s), which was mainly elitists, this modern movement was pushed by “the common man.” It was an era that celebrated leaders such as John Muir, Henry David Thoreau, Ralph Waldo Emerson and Thomas Jefferson. One of those leaders in the forefront of these radical changes was Congressman Morris K.
His argument is realistic, he wants to have equality between racial ethnicities. Also, his speech is effective because it is non violent. He wants peace and knows that if he uses violence, then his issue will never get resolved. In addition to his argument, it also creates a vision for the future. An example of this is, in paragraph 12 he states, “I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.” (637) This quote from his speech means that he has a vision for the future, and that in his vision all men and woman are created and treated
In the introduction of Andrew Light and Holmes Rolston’s book , Environmental Ethics: An Anthology, the authors explain the basic concepts of ethics: more specifically environmental ethics, and how they apply to everyday life. The main concepts discussed include moral agents, moral patients, anthropocentrism, weak or broad anthropocentrism, indirectly morally considerable, and directly morally considerable. These concepts are the foundations to the environmental ethics that Light and Rolston wrote about; however, in regards to the short story written by J. Lanham titled: “Hope and Feathers: A crisis in birder identification,” the two terms most predominately relating to the text are moral patients and moral agents. Lanham, in this text, describes the epitome of what it means to be a good moral agent, as interpreted by Light and Rolston, where others failed.
In his essay titled “Climate of Denial”, Al Gore, a well known environmental advocate and former vice president, verifies the reality of climate change and global warming. The piece is an attack on corrupt companies and news outlets that attempt to persuade the public that global warming is not a critical issue. Gore also earnestly conveys our environment’s current state and offers possible solutions that would increase awareness about global warming and begin to revert the planet back to a healthier, more sustainable state. The overarching purpose of Gore’s work is to call attention to the widespread climate change that is occurring. However, he also focuses on the corruption and bias within the media, and their attempts to conceal the truth about global warming. Writing to those who are conflicted about who to believe, he makes a valid argument that defends the beliefs of he and his fellow activists and encourages others to become more active in the climate change issue.
Environmental issues that both of the parties have to deal with is carbon dioxide, climate change and energy depletion. Energy depletion means you have used up all of your resources, they are depleted. Every time we burn fossil fuels such as gas, coal, and oil, carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere. The environment has a natural carbon cycle, carbon dioxide is re-absorbed by plants and trees but, we put out more carbon than the trees can handle. The Republican way to handle this is relying on future technologies to fix the carbon emissions and environmental issues.
Encouraged by diverse foundations from across the globe, The Environmental Justice movement has become one of the most important topics in the media. Europeans have used Marxist philosophy on class laddering, while non-Western countries required its encouragement in the criticism of colonialism. In the United States, The Civil Rights Movement was its forerunner. The notion of “Environmental Justice”, nevertheless, has its genesis in the resistance of black culture and lower income-communities in opposition to uneven ecological trouble in the United States during the last few years of the 1970s and the early 1980s. In the framework of racial improvement and public activism, the phrase was
“Environmental racism is real…so real that even having the facts, having the documentation and having the information has never been enough to provide equal protection for people of color and poor people” “It takes longer for the response and it takes longer for the recovery in communities of color and low-income communities.” (Bullard, 1994:36)
When one discusses acts of racism, slander or the stereotyping of a group of people may come to mind. However, the concept of environmental racism is rarely considered. This form of racism positions dominant environmental framing as racially driven, in which people of color (i.e. minorities) are affected disproportionately by poor environmental practices. Communities of color throughout the United States have become the dumping grounds for our nation’s waste disposal, as well as home to agricultural and/or manufacturing industries that pollute the land. Government regulations and cultural practices have all contributed to environmental racism. The government’s policies have also negatively impacted low income groups as well as people of