Gore, Al. “To Skeptics on Global Warming . . .” The New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/22/opinion/to-skeptics-on-global-warming.html Accessed 30 October, 2019.
In “To Skeptics on Global Warming . . .,”Al Gore supports his argument that global warming is a real and serious matter by presenting the most commonly deployed questions by global warming deniers coupled with the scientific responses in order to provide a ‘final’ response for naysayers. His tone is one that is meant to address the supposed concerns that deniers have continued to use in their political arguments in order to inform the public at large that global climate change is real and in his opinion, “the single most serious manifestation of a larger problem: the collision course between industrial civilization and the ecological system that supports life” on earth. In presenting his argument in this manner it becomes clear, as his op-ed appears in The New York Times, that his targeted audience is the American public. These are the individuals who he wants to make aware of the fact that politicians are denying the real and perilous impact climate change has on the livelihood of the American people. Gore presents the Bush Administration’s stance, by providing a directive given to policymakers advising them that ”a better approach is to raise the many uncertainties,” around global warming. The purpose in Gore’s argument in presenting this information to his audience is to then provide the commonly used questions with definitive responses backed by research and scientific findings. One such question elicits the response that, “it is irresponsible to assume that after moving in tandem with carbon dioxide for 160,000 years, temperatures will not be affected by those dramatic increases,” illustrating the direct connection between carbon dioxide emissions and temperature change. In using scientific findings, Gore provides logical reasoning as one method to convince his audience of the urgency of the issue. To add to the sense of urgency in his claim, Gore refers to global trends that have seen “unprecedented population growth and new technologies for burning fuels, clearing forests and manufacturing chemicals [that] have given humankind the ability to alter the composition of the atmosphere.” In doing so, he solidifies his argument that climate change is affected by modern industrialization in a way that it is a clear domino effect. Gore wants skeptics, including the Bush Administration to know that global warming is a scientifically proven reality in order to encourage the public to urge lawmakers to “act now or it will be much worse than predicted.” This statement further emphasizes the impact humanity’s abuse of the environment has for all species and generations to come.
Kaufman, Kenn. “Opinion: As a birder, I see the effects of climate change every day. Now, Audubon has quantified the threat.” Los Angeles Times, https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-10-10/climate-change-bird-species-threatened Accessed 10 October 2019.
Kaufman presents his argument through the venue of the Los Angeles Times in order to reach a readership from both sides of the political spectrum. The rise in global temperature is particularly notable for birdwatchers due to the direct impact warmer temperatures have on the habitable ranges for specific bird species. Kaufman uses current research from the National Audubon Society where “scientists analyzed the current geographic ranges of 604 North American bird species, and modeled how those ranges would change at different levels of warming” to strengthen his argument. In presenting the argument in this manner, the author appeals to the logical correlation between increased global temperatures and the emotional investment birdwatchers have as a group of individuals regardless of varying political views with a shared passion – birds. Birds, as a focal point, appeal to hobbyists and conservationists alike. Kaufman ensures that the targeted audience is convinced, noting that with the increase in temperature swaths of bird species will no longer exist. This statement implies the correlative and fatal impact of global temperature rise, which is the destruction of entire ecosystems. In presenting these findings in this manner, Kaufman’s tone evokes urgency and concern within the reader and thus further convincing the reader of his claim.
Lee, Bryan. “E-Commerce’s Efficiencies May Help Reduce Pollution.” The Wall Street Journal, https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB944834575190849787?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=16 Accessed 31 October 2019.
Lee claimed that the growth in e-commerce led by publicized internet use can save huge amount of energy and pollution. He supports the claim where “The U.S. experienced economic growth of about 4% annually in 1997 and 1998” and “During those same two years, the nation’s energy consumption — the principal source of air pollution and gases linked to global warming — hardly grew at all.” Information-technology companies’ growth allowed the economic gains without making pollution. Also, Lee made argument that rise in e-commerce allows energy saving delivery. This argument is supported by “The delivery truck uses just 10% of the energy equivalent of the consumer’s car trip.” Instead of going to physical bookstore or stores, delivery to where it is needed is a chance to reduce energy consumption up to 90%. Energy savings from the decrease in retail space is other significant claim by Lee. He cited analysis to support his claim by stating “By 2007, e-commerce could eliminate the need for 1.5 billion square feet of retail space, or 5% of the U.S. total,” and “The resulting energy savings would replace the output of 21 average-size power plants, preventing the release of 35 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions.” Therefore, online retailers such as Amazon can save retail space and energy.
Maier, Stephanie. “Op-Ed: Investors are getting closer to a climate change tipping point.” CNBC,
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/04/investors-are-getting-closer-to-a-climate-change-tipping-point.html Accessed 27 October 2019.
As an investor, Stephanie Maier presents her argument in a manner that is accessible to other business-minded individuals. By presenting her argument in this manner, Maier utilizes the discourse commonly heard in the business world presenting her audience with facts and projections to garner their interest and ensure their attention by highlighting that there is an expected “$23 trillion in global losses . . . with a 4°C rise in global temperatures.” In addition, Maier appeals to her audience by noting the current trend that can be seen in the investment world with “ investor shareholder engagement [becoming] mainstream [and in turn] opening up a new front in the drive to decarbonize the global economy.” This provides a sense of momentum and heightened awareness that is needed by her audience to ensure that they are relevant and involved in the fiduciary health of their companies to ensure that their investments are successful and productive in the global markets. Maier is worried that climate change has a significant effect on global economy but she mentioned in hopeful voice that we avoid economic crisis caused from global warming if owners of big companies and head of nations have responsibility from ownership.
Payne, Daniel. “Don’t go vegan to save the planet. You can help by being a better meat-eater.” USA TODAY,
Daniel Payne’s argument supports more environmentally and humane ways to eat meat, “consumers now have the option of buying better, cleaner, more humanely raised and less environmentally destructive meat,” in order to persuade meat-eaters to choose their meat with their wallets. It is clear that his intended audience are not individuals who are already vegetarian or vegan but rather individuals who consume meat regularly because Payne’s tone is one from the standpoint of a meat eater. He provides facts regarding the health benefits of eating animals as a part of human evolution to ensure that his stance is not confused with that of promoting veganism by stating “Human beings are part of a long meat-eating evolutionary chain stretching back millions of years; our bodies and our physiology have been shaped countless millennia of a meat-rich omnivorous diet.” In doing so, he ensures that his targeted audience does not become skeptical of his opinion as he is not trying to make them stop their eating habits. Instead, his argument is for meat eaters to change their spending habits as he uses facts that meat from animals that have lived healthy, happy lives produce better quality meat for consumption. In addition, Payne is able to illustrate the secondary results of eating ethically treated animals which is the environmental impact, saying “Healthier meat also makes for a healthier local environment, which can over time lead to a healthier climate. At a time of growing concern about pending catastrophic climate change, this benefit can’t be overlooked.” This connection is made clearer for the audience to ensure that his audience is convinced and committed to select the more expensive but overall morally and ethically better meat choice.
Schoonover, Rod. “The White House Blocked My Report on Climate Change and National Security.” The New York Times,
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/30/opinion/trump-climate-change.html Accessed 16 October 2019.
Dr. Schoonover, who worked as an intelligence analyst for the federal government, and focused on the impact of environmental and climate change on national security in the U.S., presents an ethical appeal to the reader for his decision to resign from his position. Considering the political climate in which Dr. Schoonover is presenting his argument and the venue in which it is presented, the target audience he is addressing is not individuals on the far political right but rather moderates to more left centered individuals. In order to appeal to this audience, which has a range of opinions and stances with regards to climate change, he highlights his educational background to establish his position as an authority in the realm of scientific inquiry. Dr. Schoonover expresses his admiration as a senior analyst for the Bureau of Intelligence and Research at the State Department by highlighting that it was “home.” He also expresses reverence for the position he once held as it is “the oldest civilian intelligence agency in the government . . .well known for its history of analytic sharpness and courageous dissent.” To ensure that his audience does not suspect his increasing frustrated tone to be connected to a dissident political view, he highlights the “apolitical nature of [his] work.” Dr. Schoonover then uses his position, as a well-versed and dedicated scientist, to fortify his stance with regard to the negative impact climate change has on our national security. Throughout the piece, Dr. Schoonover combines this admiration for the work and the position he once held with concern and frustration with the current administration’s stance which “blocked the submission of [his] bureau’s written testimony on the national security implications of climate change to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.” He elicits sympathy from his readers as he recounts how he was repeatedly not received by the administration because his findings illustrated the negative effects climate change has on national security. In presenting his stance in this manner, Dr. Schoonover makes it clear that his act of resignation is directly due to the outright denial of the facts that his work presented to the current administration due to the fact that “the scientific foundation of the analysis did not comport with the administration’s position on climate change.” It evokes fear in the readers as they realize that despite the best intentions and unbiased manner in which Dr. Schoonover attempted to present his findings to the Trump Administration, there was an outright denial and distrust of the scientifically analysed reports.