This...
 |
| Photo courtesy of Google Images |
Becomes This...
 |
| Photo courtesy of Google Images |
And Ends Like This...
 |
| Photo courtesy of Google Images |
so why do we continue to do it?
Yes, we need oil considering we burn through 7.90335 * 10 to the thirteenth power gallons of oil every year, but we can extract the oil from other places rather than hundreds of miles from the shore (debate.org). Many people would argue that drilling for oil off shore presents several jobs to our fellow Americans, but wouldn’t on shore drilling also give Americans the same opportunity?
The employees for these offshore drilling companies only have jobs temporarily anyways considering once the supply runs out the companies will fire them causing unemployment to rise again (debate.org).
The environment is suffering from the amount of offshore drilling. Poor animals, like the pelican pictured above, are suffering greatly from our lack of efforts to extract oil from other countries’ land or our own land. According to dosomething.org reporting facts about the BP oil spill in 2010, “over 8,000 animals (birds, turtles, mammals) were reported dead just 6 months after the spill, including many that are already on the endangered species list. Immediate impact on the wildlife includes oil-coated birds and sea turtles, mammal ingestion of oil, and dead or dying deep sea coral” (dosomething.org). Along with our wildlife being harmed, Americans were harmed as well. Dosomething.org also states that, “the initial oil rig explosion killed 11 people and injured 17 others” (dosomething.org). Why would we continue to do something that has the potential to hurt Americans and our wildlife?
Oil spills are not an easy mess to clean up either. These “messes” can take at most five years to completely clean up. From the BP oil spill in 2010, patches of oil still currently remain in the Gulf of Mexico in 2013. The cost of these clean ups can be majorly expensive too. After the BP oil spill, our president, Barack Obama, set aside a $20 billion spill response fund. This fund is to ensure that if another spill were to happen, our government could start clean up actions immediately. Dosomething.org explains how costly the spill was on not only our government, but also BP itself. “BP is responsible for close to $40 billion in fines, clean up costs, and settlements as a result of the oil spill in 2010, with an additional $16 billion due to the Clean Water Act” (dosomething.org). Why would we continue to do something that is costing us billions of dollars to fix?
Offshore drilling is not the answer. We, as Americans, have so many other opportunities to get the oil we need. Onshore drilling and drilling in other countries can work and is something we need to definitely consider. No one likes cleaning up messes, especially messes that can cost as much as $40 billion to clean up.
Let’s come together to make a change now!
 |
| Photo courtesy of Twisted Sifter |
Works Cited
Donovan, Travis. "BP Oil Spill Cost Hits $40 Billion, Company Returns To Profit." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 02 Nov. 2010. Web. 01 Dec. 2013.
"Oceana | Protecting the World's Oceans." Oceana. Oceana, Feb. 2012. Web. 01 Dec. 2013.
"Should Offshore Drilling Be Encouraged?" The Premier Online Debate Website. Debate.org, 01 Nov. 2011. Web. 01 Dec. 2013.
"11 Facts about the BP Oil Spill." Do Something. WhiteHouse.gov, 15 Jan. 2011. Web. 01 Dec. 2013.
This is a really good piece. I love that you started your article with a series of pictures. I also loved your use of facts to catch the readers attention at the beginning and throughout the post. They really appealed to pathos by making the reader feel alarmed about oil spills. You really did a good job appealing to logos in the opening paragraph when you posed the question "Many people would argue that drilling for oil off shore presents several jobs to our fellow Americans, but wouldn’t on shore drilling also give Americans the same opportunity?"(Fields 1). This also makes your readers want to continue reading and is an interesting way to start your post. I also thought your title was very good and catchy. You did a good job appealing to your Ethos by showing that your sources are credible and by using them very appropriately. You did a good job achieving your persuasive purpose by using these appeals. The only thing I would really change is maybe spread out your pictures throughout your post and make your paragraphs smaller. Other than that, good job!
ReplyDeleteI like how you started this piece with pictures depicting your issue. They relate to and help you get your point across. Your use of pathos is excellent. By discussing the impact of oil spills on animals, it brings up a feeling of anger and compassion. Also, when using your sources, you make a point that you have done your research on this topic. For example, in paragraph three when using the quote “over 8,000 animals (birds, turtles, mammals) were reported dead just 6 months after the spill, including many that are already on the endangered species list. Immediate impact on the wildlife includes oil-coated birds and sea turtles, mammal ingestion of oil, and dead or dying deep sea coral” (dosomething.org). You have incorporated this quote nicely into your argument and this helps out your argument tremendously. I believe you use ethos and pathos effectively to accomplish your persuasive purpose. One thing I would change is the length of your body paragraphs. I would work on shortening them or splitting the information up a little bit. Other than this, your piece is very good.
ReplyDeleteOverall I really like the way Brittany approached the issue of offshore drilling and oil spills. Brittany chooses specific words that create a connection with her audience. For example she makes appeals to pathos when she says, “fellow Americans” and “We, as Americans, have so many other opportunities to get the oil we need”. The amount of times Brittany uses this strategy is helpful in persuading her audience too much of this can take away from the material, she found a nice balance. Another way Brittany successfully connected to her audience was through the use of logos. For example she states “After the BP oil spill, our president, Barack Obama, set aside a $20 billion spill response fund” this gives evidence furthering her discussion and is effective in persuading the reader to take action against off shore drilling. Brittany’s use of easy to understand language and clear organization of more complicated information seemed to be successful in persuading the reader. If I were to offer any advice I would suggest Brittany incorporate her images within the paper not just at the beginning and end. The images are interesting; I just wonder how much more effective they would be if they were spaced throughout the paper. Overall I enjoyed reading this piece and believe Brittany was successful in accomplishing the purpose of this paper.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete