Lack of Information Concerning Extinction

News articles usually include a claim accompanied by evidence to back it up. However, not all evidence supplies the claim with credible nor valid support. Depending on the reader’s interpretation of the given information, one could find the argument unconvincing. In the case of the article “Almost a fifth of vertebrate species are endangered” published by New Scientist on October 27th, 2010, I found the argumentative support to be unsatisfactory.

The claim stated in the news article is that the rate of endangerment is becoming a grim statistic due to human activity. The statement made by the news paper is a reasonable one; however, the scientific information has two major weaknesses.

The first flaw is the lack of scientific information concerning the extinction process. Evolution, in which extinction plays a significant role, has been occurring continuously since the origin of life on Earth. That means the natural process of extinction has been present for billions of years. Humans have studied this process and collected data on the matter for mere centuries. We have not completed the full history of the process; therefore we are dealing with insufficient and possibly misleading information. There is no way of identifying any abnormalities with recent extinction rates or patterns.

In addition to the insufficient extinction trend, we have not yet (and may never) obtained a complete catalogue of all living organisms within the biosphere. Once again, the lack of information discredits all the of the statistical support provided by the article. According to the published article, “19 per cent of vertebrate species are threatened” (Marshall 2010) and “at least 15 per cent [of invertebrates] are currently endangered.”(Marshall 2010) These percentages are invalid because they are derived solely on the total sum of organisms of which we are aware. There is a possibility that the statistics are being exaggerated from the real values that would be retrieved had we known all the organisms currently inhabiting the planet. To place a final emphasis on the human error included in the statistics provided, the article admits to the lack of scientific information available by stating “the world is a storehouse of beauty and variety that we are depleting before we have truly explored it.”(Marshall 2010)

Following the main body of the article is a list of four examples supporting the claim. The examples included the fossa from the forests of Madagascar, the African damselfly, the cycad plant of South Africa, and mussels in Morocco. This section was one of the stronger areas of the article because the author was able to make some connections between human activity and the extinction of certain animal species. However, this is also where the second major weakness arises.

Within each example, the author manages to provide information that contradicts the claim that extinction rates are fluctuating due to human activity. In the example describing the Madagascar fossas (large carnivores), the author states that “nobody is quite sure what a fossa is.”(Marshall 2010) This gives the impression that we do not know enough about this species, let alone what could be affecting its population size. Next we are told about the damselflies of Africa that have not only shrunk in numbers, but in size as well. As in the first example, the author provides alternative causes for the decrease besides human activity. The physical size decrease was theorized to be caused by a decrease in oxygen in the atmosphere. As for the population size, the author described how the larvae of the damselfly are carnivorous and are inclined to eat each other. This self-detrimental habit amongst the larvae could be held responsible for population decline instead of humans. Coming to our third species, the cycad plant, we are told that it is the oldest seed-bearing plant on Earth. Having shared this information, the article has given the audience the impression that it could just be nearing its natural time of extinction as many species have done in the past. Lastly, a clan of mussels believed to be extinct were discovered “clinging to life after all”(Marshall 2010) in Morocco. The fact that these mussels have been found tells readers that species are able to preserve their population numbers against harsh environment conditions. Some could theorize that the mussels have adapted to their new environment with human activity; therefore, disproving the original claim in the article.

In conclusion, the article is addressing a very plausible theory connecting human activity with increasing extinction rates. The article also provided scientific support to the best of its ability with the information that is currently available. However, due to incomplete research, lack of trend structuring of extinction rates and contradictory examples on the authors part, I cannot fully agree with the claim. With more time and research, the correlation between human activity and extinction rates stands a chance of being proven correct in the future.

References:

Marshall, M. “Almost a fifth of vertebrate species are endangered”. New Scientist, October 27th, 2010. Retrieved November 6th, 2010 from http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19642-almost-a-fifth-of-vertebrate- species-are-endangered.html

Leah deBortoli

Being Over Protective about Biodiversity?

John David Russo (0707990)

November 11, 2010

ENVS*1020*0140

Blog Assignment #3

In recent years, it has become more and more common to hear or read about what opinions people have about biodiversity, whether it is important or not and why that is. A recent article, titled “Definitely not a tame affair”, describes one the author’s stance on biodiversity. This author, Datuk Zoal Azha Yusof, starts off with a very strong opinion on how biodiversity is important piece of humanity. Throughout the article the author makes several similar claims. The author’s claims seem to focus around two main points, one being that undiminished biodiversity, that is to say the relative amount of biodiversity we currently have, is absolutely necessary for humanity to continue and the other being that humanity is obligated to protect biodiversity.

Before analyzing the author’s view on the subject, I analyzed the strength of the author’s claims. When doing so I noted that when the author is making their claims they never provide any supporting data or evidence. On several occasions the author does link statements to the actions and data provided by several organizations, but never references when this data was obtained. As an attempt to follow the author’s reasoning, I attempted to do some research on one of the organizations mentioned in the article, Perhilitan. Unfortunately the organization’s main site was not in English, and I could find little reliable information on them. At this point the arguments and claims throughout the article have little significance without any supporting information, they are nothing but opinions.

When examining the author’s claims, as said earlier, the author focuses on the ideas that biodiversity is absolutely necessary for humanity to continue and the other being that humanity is obligated to protect biodiversity. The author strongly expresses that they feel that biodiversity is necessary for humanity to function, even going as far as saying that human survival hinges on the conservation of ALL species. Interestingly enough, the author never actually says why biodiversity is needed or important, simply that it is so. Similarly with the second claim, that humans are obligated to protect biodiversity, the author does not give any strong reasoning as to why this is. The only reasoning given for the second claim is that because biodiversity is important and necessary for humanity’s continuation, humans should protect it. Unfortunately, this reasoning is relevant only if the author’s earlier claims about biodiversity are believed.

Reviewing the arguments made by the author, I find myself disagreeing with author about both the claims mentioned above for several reasons. The first being that the author does seem not take into account how species loss may affect an ecosystem. Secondly the author seems to ignore exactly how biodiversity affects humanity.

The author states that biodiversity is important, and that every species should be protected. The author seems to imply that an entire ecosystem could collapse if any one species were to go extinct. While it is true that the extinction of some species may lead to the disruption of an ecosystems functionality and perhaps eventual collapse, it is not the case with every species. While all species in an ecosystem have some role to play, not all roles are vital to the ecosystem’s well being. If each species role was vital, then we would have witnessed the collapse of countless ecosystems of the course of human history. Extinction is a natural event and a part of evolution, and is not necessarily always negative. When the author mentions preserving species, they do not seem to take into account what affect that species has on its ecosystem simply that is a part of biodiversity and therefore needs our protection. If this was the approach humanity took globally to protect biodiversity, then it could cause humanity to waste tremendous amount of time and recourses protecting and preserving species which many not be vital to the function of any ecosystem, instead of focusing our time and resources on vital species that require human aid to survive.

The author’s view on the connection between humanity and biodiversity is that humanity relies on biodiversity so much that all species are critical for human survival. This however is obviously not the case as humanity has survived through the extinction of species; in fact many species go extinct each day without humanity collapsing. While it is true that humanity does rely on biodiversity for survival, the extent to which we do is clearly not as much as the author states.

The author’s arguments stating that biodiversity is important and vital to human survival is not wrong, however; they do take these arguments to extremes where they are no longer true. Humanity should not, and does not need to, try and preserve every species for the sake of biodiversity, like the author claims we should. Instead, humanity should focus on preserving those species that humanity does rely on. However; this does not mean that humanity should be allowed to harm species that we do not rely on as we wish, simply that we should protect what is important to us.

Works Cited

Brown, Letty. "The Berkeley Science Review: Articles." Berkeley Science Review. 2009. Web. 11 Nov. 2010. .

Yusof, Datuk Z. A. "Definitely Not a Tame Affair." The Star Online. Star Publications (M) Bhd (Co No 10894-D), 06 Nov. 2010. Web. 11 Nov. 2010. .

Iron Seeding: Too Good to be True?

The Treehugger article “Anti-Science Environmentalism: Iron Seeding Experiment Protested... Again” makes some strong claims. The author, John Laumer explains that we are being putting iron into our oceans to help combat against carbon dioxide emissions in our atmosphere. It is not clear however, if this experiment will have negative implication in the future of our waters.

The experiment involves spreading 20 tonnes of iron sulphate over 300 square kilometres near the South Georgia Islands in the southern Atlantic. The hope is for the introduction of iron to boost the population of phytoplankton to absorb greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. While this theory has the potential to make great progress in climate control, there are many contributing factors that Laumer seems to ignore. An example of Laumer’s bias is:

“Keep in mind that ambient iron levels in the deep oceans have fallen off since the 1970's, and that iron is a naturally present micro-nutrient, perennially deposited to the ocean from the air. Iron replenishment, which is what these field experiments aboard the Polarstern are about, is in no way exposing organisms to an unnatural condition.” (Laumer, 2010)

While it is easy to believe Laumer’s confidence in this situation, it is not such an open and shut case. Reagan Payne argues that, “If the phytoplankton consume the CO2 and then sink to 500 meters, then the carbon could be sequestered for hundreds of years. If it sinks below 1000 meters it could rest undisturbed for millenia. Proponents of ocean seeding point out that in the last 25 years the level of phytoplankton in the ocean fell be 6%. Because phytoplankton absorb about half the planets CO2 a year, or 50 billion tons, a continued decrease in the population would be catastrophic. Also ocean water that contains higher concentrations of algae would reflect more sunlight limiting the warming of oceans from light absorption.” (Payne, 2008)

Laumer suddenly jumps into defence-mode, scoffing at the comparison of iron seeding to geo-engineering. “Earth-resuscitating technologies commonly included in the "Geo-Engineering" category include the use of artillery to shoot heat-reflecting mirrors into orbit around the earth; or, use of rockets to blast up sulfur compounds to accomplish the same, volcano-like heat shunning function. Both these interventions would be billion dollar projects involving defense departments tools - no doubt. Potentially, the reaction of many nations to efforts to control the earths' climate by militaristic means will not be peaceful either.” (Laumer, 2010)

It is hard to disagree with the opposition, the thought of dumping mass amounts of any nutrient into our ocean sounds risky. This quick fix may have dire consequences. Michael Reilly (2008) says, “In the wake of a UN moratorium on the practice, the latest research suggests that seeding will trigger the build-up of an acid that can be lethal to marine organisms and humans.”

Laumer’s argument is based on the premise that climate change is of ultimate importance, above marine life, ecosystem, and potentially even human health. While it is imperative for the author to be passionate about the subject in question, it is negligent to disregard any other opinion, especially when the information is so easily accessible. He claims that there are many opposing opinions being thrown around just to muddy public understanding. After feeding the readers a one-sided story, he ends with a jab to the oposition, “I have no problem with voices loudly opposing iron seeding experiments- if those voices present an ethical position and do not masquerade as scientists speaking of measured risk. But, to pre-suppose the experimental outcome, and to exaggerate the risk to defend a narrowly constructed ethical position is...well it's Bush-like.” (Laumer, 2010)

References:
Laumer, J. (2010). Anti-science environmentalism: iron seeding protested..again. Treehugger, Retrieved from http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/03/anti-science-environmentalism-iron-seeding-experiment-protested.php
Payne, R. (2008). Ocean seeding: the good, the bad, the moratorium. Celsias, Retrieved from http://www.celsias.com/article/ocean-seeding-good-bad-moratorium/
Reilly, M. (2008). Ocean seeding fails the acid test. The New Scientist, Retrieved from http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826603.700-ocean-seeding-fails-the-acid-test.html

By: Kacie Weber

The Biofuel Argument

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/biofuel-plan-will-cause-rise-in-carbon-emissions-2129773.html

Oliver Write for the independent wrote an Article entitled Biofuel will cause a rise in carbon emissions. In this article he outlined flaws in the British governments plans to have ten percent of the united kingdoms transport fuel to be replaced by Bio Fuels. The arguments that are used to Justify this opinion include a study performed by the Institute of European Environmental Policy, other non Sited numbers. The information he speaks on mostly covers, CO2 emissions, Land use for Bio Fuel and different numbers that he feels would work better. I believe that although the information he gives does make a reasonable argument, he left many holes in which to pick the argument apart.

In Mr. Write’s article, he mentioned that plants such as Oilseed, Rape, Sugar cane and palms when used to produce Bio Fuel released in Fuel form the equivalent amount of CO2 as the plant absorbed in life. This produced what is known, as CO2 Neutrality where the amount of CO2 produced from burning is equal to that which was removed by the plant in life. What was not mentioned in the article is that since those plants were used, new plants and byproducts of plants can be used to produce BioFuel that releases less CO2 emissions. An Example of this is using the chaffs of harvested wheat that can be broken down into BioFuel. This means that these crops can be harvested for human consumption, and then the Chaffs can be turned into BioFuel. This plant prevents CO2 neutrality that the Rape plant and the Sugar cane create.

This use of Wheat also debunks 2 of the other points that Oliver Write brought up. Firstly Mr. Write was concerned that the British government would have to buy land in other countries or deforest their own land to make room for crops to produce bio Fuel with. However that is not a necessity now with the ability to use the chafes and left over parts of crops, that would normally just get disposed of, as BioFuel. Secondly the worry about having to remove agriculture for the use of BioFuel is not longer an issue because now the crops grown for consumption can be used as BioFuel making it a Viable option.

Another flaw I found in Mr. Write’s article was his focus on CO2 emissions. When looking at a burning fuel for use in transportation, CO2 is not the only gas that is produced. Other emissions such as carbon monoxide Nitrogen oxides, and small hydrocarbons need to be looked at as well when making a decision a new fuel source. The BioFuel will produce less of some of these other emissions that normal fossil fuel produces when burned.

The final flaw that I could locate in the Argument laid out in this argument comes in at the end where Mr. Write says that the target need to be reassessed however he fails to come up with a source that showed a possible target that would be preferable to reduce the effects he speaks of, nor does he even offer a suggestion himself.

One argument that I believe would have fit well into this article that was left out was the inability of may cars on the Road today are incapable of running on BioFuel. This fact alone means that if the UK wishes to meet its goal, it will have to have it’s citizens get wrok done on there cars to be adaptable with BioFuel, or they will have to put a policy in place that says all cars in sold in the UK must have the ability to run on both BioFuel and Fossil Fuel.

All in all I agree with what Mr. White had to say about BioFuel however I believe that he could have done a better job of filling in the blanks, and making his points more sound, instead of just spinning what he had so that the people that read it who were uninformed on the science and research would agree with him.

By Ian Wratschko

City vs. Country: the Concrete Jungle is Greener

By: Jacquelyn Saturno

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827851.100-city-vs-country-the-concrete-jungle-is-greener.html?page=1


In the New Scientist article “City vs. Country: The Concrete Jungle is Greener” (08 November 2010) the author, Shanta Barley, starts off by stating the negative impacts that rural areas have on the environment. Her claim throughout the entire article focuses on the belief that urban areas are more environmentally friendly as opposed to living in the rural areas.

“Indeed, there are many reasons to expect that cities might actually reduce each individual's carbon footprint, all of which hinge around the fact that cities concentrate people close together rather than spreading them thinly across the landscape... This mass exodus from the countryside should lift the strain of intensive agriculture from the land, allowing forests to bounce back. What's more, the high concentration of houses and businesses in cities means it is easier for local authorities to run an energy efficient infrastructure for sanitation, running water and electricity.” (Barley 2010)

Barley believes that the environments greatest threat is the amount of clearings that are taken place for the farms that require open and clear space. Cities are dense and concentrated in a small area and therefore require little land. She has also stated that our carbon foot print can be reduced in cities because of the reduction of car use. Her last claim focuses on an economical point of view. Those who move to the city will be well-off and will have a better chance at a comfortable and sustainable lifestyle.


When I read this article I had a problem with Barley’s belief and understanding with major causes of environmental impact. Although I can’t disagree that rural areas use up more land than urban areas do, I cannot come to terms with accepting that urban areas are more environmentally friendly, based on her argument anyway. Barley blames agriculture for the loss of ecosystems that had to be removed in order for us to farm. In her article she makes an implication that the removal of farms will restore our biodiversity and increase everyone’s wellbeing. It appears that Barley has forgotten the essential importance for farming and why agriculture benefits society as a whole. Agriculture creates the raw materials that are essential to us, whether it be for food, clothing, etc. The amount created depends on the demand. The more consumed, the more produced. This requires fertilizers to grow crops faster and constantly reusing the soil in order to produce higher quantities and meet the needs of consumers; this is not very environmentally friendly. In wealthy cities, like New York, city dwellers consume more than their capacity can take. They create all this waste and continue to consume more. How will limiting agriculture keep up with the amount of intake an average city dweller has? If we remove enormous masses of agriculture land and have country-dwellers migrate to cities, as suggested by Barley, then our dependence on other countries’ raw material will take place.


In this article, one of the claims is that our ecological footprint will reduce if many more people lived in urban areas. In cities, less car pollution is created because of how condensed everything is. However, since everything is condensed, smog has been given a chance to form. The impact of smog is taken into affect almost instantly. Unlike global warming, smog is an environmental problem that has a direct effect on us. It causes harmful health risks like lung cancer and other respiratory problems. Not only does it affect those residing in cities, but as smog travels it also becomes harmful to ecosystems and rural areas that are at a far distance. The actions of people in cities are connected to the well-being of ecosystems and people throughout a nation.

In this article, another claim was made regarding the boost that the economy will encounter when families leave rural areas and reside in urban ones. There will be a greater chance for families to escape poverty and many more people will be properly educated and obtain better opportunities for a career. However, this may be true for cities with wealth and power but there are cities of the developing world that have one of the worst living conditions. This can be caused by lack of clean drinking water, overpopulation in a dense area, and the lack of consistency of garbage that is collected. Barley’s article ignores the environmental effect of what would happen if majority of the world’s population lived an urban lifestyle. She focuses only on economic growth and family benefits for those who reside in wealthy cities.


In conclusion, Barley’s argument targets towards how urban areas are more environmentally friendly than rural areas. Barley’s claims were weak without strong evidence to prove that city dwellers do not affect the environment as much as country dwellers. Neither lifestyles are perfect in sustaining the environment but it is almost certain that the damages generated by urbanization weigh more. The contribution to the enormous amount of waste that is created, the health risks and all the developing countries that wouldn’t benefit from urbanization were ignored. While the claims to back up Barley’s argument may be true, they are not strong enough to come to the conclusion that the effects of urbanization is environmentally correct and will benefit everyone.


References
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827851.100-city-vs-country-the-concrete-jungle-is-greener.html?page=1
http://www.wri.org/publication/content/8570
http://library.thinkquest.org/26026/Environmental_Problems/smog_-_effects.html
http://www.unep.or.jp/ietc/publications/insight/jan-01/4.asp

Public or private, how should we control our water?

Kimberly Farias.

In Maclean’s article “Is the privatization of water the right thing to do?” published September 3rd, 2009 the author, Nancy Macdonald, argues that privatization of the world’s water supply is a viable solution to water concerns. Water is needed for life, and clean, sanitary water should be available to everyone. Water is definitely an increasingly important issue as population increases creating a higher demand, and the climate changes, redistributing the resource. The author tries to derail the usual arguments against the privatization of water.

“It has long been assumed that privatizing water services is bad for the poor, bad for the environment, and leads to the inequitable distribution of water. The usual argument is that private companies will put profits ahead of people, cutting off the supply of fresh water to those who can’t afford it. However, new evidence has emerged showing that the opposite may be true.” (Macdonald 2009)

Macdonald opens with the tale of Bolivia’s failed attempt at water privatization, and the trouble that they face now with a public system. Currently in Bolivia, many people are without access to clean water, or have very limited access. While this and the countless other statistics used may be true, I read nothing positive about privatization. The article mostly beats up public water, it doesn’t say why or how privatization would work. Other than “Some say privatization could lead to more realistic pricing, less waste, and better distribution—even to the world’s poor” (Macdonald 2009). The words “some say” make the whole statement seem weak. I think if there was more about why privatization would be a good solution the article could have been more persuasive. It definitely works in her favour to articulate on all the reasons why the current public system does not work, but just stating that privatization is the way to go is not very convincing. Stories of successful water privatization would go a long way in developing a stronger argument. There are some cases from India, and Buenos Aires where privatization of water lead to better distribution, and affordability for the poor. If these were used in addition to the problems with public water, I feel the argument would have been sturdier.

She uses reliable and staggering statistics demonstrating the need for a revaluation of current water distribution systems. One sixth of the world’s population doesn’t have access to clean water, and places with plentiful water simply waste it. This is a strong argument, using seemingly reliable information, but it is not used in submission with the privatization aspect of the article as efficiently as it could be. She points out the flaws of the common state-controlled water, but she fails to mention certain aspects. Professor Gabriel Eckstein of the Texas Tech School of Law is quoted in the article saying “We have enough fresh water globally to provide every person on earth a hundred times over” (Macdonald 2009). It is simply the distribution of the water that needs to be figured out. It would take resources and energy to get clean, fresh, uncontaminated, drinkable water to everyone on the planet. Not only that but if the 1.1 billion people without clean water suddenly had access, there would be much more water to be cleaned and processed. So with greater water distribution comes, the need for more energy. Much of the developing world, where this water is needed the most, has insufficient energy sources, especially in rural areas. More than 1.5 billion people worldwide don’t have access to electricity (Centurelli 2010). Water is the issue here, but energy should be mentioned, because it is needed to process, clean, and redistribute this life sustaining resource.

In conclusion, the author of this article uses both strong and weak arguments when attempting to prove her point. She focuses on disproving what most people believe, but she does not attempt to demonstrate how privatization would be beneficial, only how public water is not. There were many statistics used to help solidify her argument, as well as quotes from experts. The article is strictly focused on water; it is a vital resource that billions don’t have access to. The article fails to address things important to the distribution and processing of water like energy. A more effective argument could have been made with the addition of positive privatization information. Also there is more than the just the issue of water. Energy and distribution needs to be taken into consideration, because without energy there would not be clean, drinkable water. This article definitely helped to further inform me on issues dealing with water, but I am not convinced that privatization is the solution.

References

Macdonald, N., Is the privatization of water the right thing to do?, Macleans, Sept. 3, 2009. http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/09/03/the-market-solution/

Centurelli, R., Energy Poverty. How to make modern energy access universal?, OECD/IEA, Sept. 2010.

Kiribati, the first Nation of the World to Disappear

      

                                                                                                Josh Kuikman

      The island of Kiribati, a Micronesian island of 100,000 people, is the first nation of the world that is predicted to disappear.  In 1999, Tebua Tarawa and Abanuea, two islets of Kiribati, were consumed by the Pacific Ocean and Kiribati itself is predicted to disappear by 2100. In the article, “Climate Change Impacting World’s Most Vulnerable Nation’s Fresh Water: World Leaders at Economic Summit and UN Climate Talks Urged to Act”, MD Kensington writes about climate scientists and the environmental leaders who are urging the U.N. to address the issues of water scarcity and climate change by focusing on the plight of Kiribati. Kensington’s argument in this article is that climate change is forcing the biggest moral challenge that humans face in our century. He also argues that it is important to address this problem now. Although Kensington is addressing an important topic, it is my opinion that he presents his argument in an unconvincing and weak way.  He never makes a strong argument clearly linking the problems of the Micronesian island to climate change and so leaves the possibility open for a counter argument that other factors may be to blame.

     Kensington begins by highlighting some of the key concerns that experts and scientists are bringing forward at the summit. He does this by quoting the words of environmental leaders speaking out on the issue. For example, Rabbi Warren Stone is quoted as saying that, “The Micronesian Island nations are the world’s first environmental refugees. It is the moral responsibility of world leaders, both at the Economic Summit in Seoul and the UN climate talks, to act now to protect future generations and the world’s creation from climate devastation” (“Climate Change”, 2010).  The article continues in this fashion with quotes from a variety of experts in the field. In my opinion, this is not an effective way to try to prove his point because it is difficult to tell the key point he is trying to highlight. Each person he quotes talks about something slightly different and it is hard to piece together the message. For example, at the beginning of the article Kensington states that bold action needs to be taken to alleviate water scarcity and other problems caused by global climate change. Although he makes this statement, he does not mention any possible action that can be taken to solve the problem. This issue is only briefly addressed again later in the article when he mentions that the people of Kiribati do not have clean drinking water due to contamination from the salt water of the ocean.  This approach leaves the reader with no clear picture of either the problem, its relationship to Kiribati or any potential solutions.

      Kensington writes in such a way as to persuade the reader into sympathizing for the people of Kiribati.  He paints a picture of Kiribati that is similar to that of a starving child in Africa with flies crawling over him. Although this makes you feel concern for the people of Kiribati, it will do little to effect real change in society or their governments. At most people may be willing to donate a few dollars but will then quickly forget about their suffering. This is shown when he quotes the Minister of the Environment of Kiribati, Michael Foon saying, “Our children have no water! How many more of our children will die because they have no access to fresh water” (“Climate Change”, 2010).   Kensington’s attempt to gain sympathy for the people in the Micronesian island of Kiribati falls short, making the article weak.

      I agree with the author that something should be done to help the nation of Kiribati but I think he could have done a better job of winning over his audience. Although citing different experts is a good way to make a strong argument, this article was not effective in then drawing the links between the issues of climate change and the crisis on Kiribati.  A definitive cause and effect relation is never established.  If I was to write this article I would start by writing about the Micronesian nation of Kiribati and the effects of global climate change on it. Then I would write about the upcoming Economic Summit in Seoul and the U.N. Climate talks.  Finally, I would finish it off with what can be done to help solve this problem. I would top it all off by using quotes from various environmental leaders in the appropriate places to both strengthen and support the claims that were being made. This would create a stronger argument which gives reliable information to the reader and helps them make an informed decision about the issue.  

Reference List:

“Climate Change Impacting World’s Most Vulnerable Nation’s Fresh Water: World     

          Leaders at Economic Summit and UN Climate Talks Urged to Act” (November 6, 

          2010). PRWeb. Retrieved November 7, 2010, from http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/

           article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/11/06/prwebprweb4753114.DTL