My Thoughts Made Public

The biggest difference in which I have noticed in looking over my blog is the confidence in my writing. This was the very first blog I have ever done so I was really not sure what to expect. At first, the thought that everyone could read what I was writing really scared me. I wanted to go through and read what other people had written before I wrote my first blog to make sure I wasn’t sounding too strange on my blog. For my first blog assignment which was the introduction of ourselves, I wrote a very limited response. I did not want to put that much information about myself on the internet that everyone could see. Then, I soon realized the information about myself that I put on Facebook is way more information than I would ever put on this blog. Also more people will probably look at my Facebook page than on my English 308J Blog. Still, however I was timid about what I posted to my blog. This was mainly because I had never met most of the people in my class and I knew they were going to be reading it so I didn’t want to come off as that “weird kid in the class”. The biggest difference between my earlier and my later blogs was the content and purpose of the blogs. My first few blogs were more about me and my personal opinion about the topic in which we were discussing. The later blogs which I had posted were more academic and had to do more with the project and paper I was working on. The biggest difference between my first and last blogs, however, was the change in my view about the environment. When I first came into this class, I would have considered myself the opposite of an environmentalist. I am not saying that I hate the environment, but environmental issues were not really all that important to me when thinking about the issues in my life. Now, I would not consider myself a hardcore tree hugger, but I am absolutely more aware of the environmental issues facing our planet, and especially the local community in which we live. I believe the cause of this was because of all the literature on the environment which I had read and the research I had done on so many topics which we discussed in the class. It makes sense that the more you know about the topic, the more it will matter to you. As I began to know more about our environment and the problems facing it, the more interested I became in learning about these topics as a whole.

I would consider my strongest posts to be about the reading on Food Inc. I believe these were my strongest arguments because the book Food Inc. was so fascinating to me. It makes sense to me that the better writing I did would be about a topic which interests me. I would have more to write about because I would have more to say about the issue in which we are discussing. The topic of the food we eat as Americans and the way we consume it had never really crossed my mind before reading this book. I had so much to say about this topic because this was a topic that really hit home with me. All the negative things about food consumption that Americans do, I was guilty of, and most likely still am. I thought it was so interesting for the different authors to take a topic so specified as eating, and apply it to so many different aspects of our lives. My weaker posts were the responses to the speaker we had and the movies we watched (besides Food Inc.). I think these were not my strongest posts because they were not topics that truly interested me.

At first, I was very hesitant to post blogs about my personal thoughts on my blog because they were just that: personal. I did not want to offend anyone with my personal beliefs and have them ripped apart by someone else who felt very strongly about that same issue. I soon realized though, the blog was a venue for our ideas to be shared with the class and everyone was supportive of our arguments. If anyone did have an objection to our posts, they were constructive and not offensive. Overall I thought the blog was a very good aspect of this class because it was easily accessible and it was a very good way for everyone is both classes to share ideas, comments, and interact with other students in the class.

Outline

I. Introduction

Thesis: Americans today ingest harmful chemicals and poisons on a regular basis because of water run-off from pesticides used in modern farming practices.



Body

II. A history of farming and how we used to eat. How it has not always been that we consume harmful chemicals. Why farmers, sometimes you without realizing it, use such practices.



III. How does this happen? Explain the process of how chemicals make it from the large corn fields to your own body. What damage does this cause? Also, discuss what damage these practices have on tne environment, especially water and animal life. Also the damage to soil in the fields in which these methods are practiced.



IV. Alternative Practices. Provide examples from all over using safe farming practices with little or no harmful chemicals.



V. Conclusion

What can you do about it? What are something that you can do on a small scale that can lead to making a big difference on how we consume food and the way we live our lives. Using such practices can make us healthier and in some cases, spend less money in the process. Also, discuss my ideas about the future. For instance how our practices may change and what the future may hold. I will discuss the role oil depletion will play in this process and how we may not have a choice in the future but to eat local foods.





Bibliography





Baker, Andy. "Fluorescence properties of some farm wastes: implications for water quality monitoring." Elsevier Science 36.1 (2002): 189-95. Web. 31 Jan 2010.

Feather, Peter. "Voluntary Incentives for Reducing Agricultural Nonpoint Source Water Pollution." Economic Research Service (1995): n. pag. Web. 31 Jan 2010.

Geldreich, Edwin. "Concepts of Fecal Streptococci in Stream Pollution." Water Envirnomental Federation 41.8 (1969): 336-52. Web. 31 Jan 2010.

Johnson, Scott. "The On-Farm Costs of Reducing Groundwater Pollution." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73.4 (1991): 1063-73. Web. 31 Jan 2010.

Jordahl, J.L. "Comparison of Alternative Farming Systems." American Journal of Alternative Agriculture n. pag. Web. 22 Feb 2010.

Mader, Paul. "Soil Fertility and Biodiversity in Organic Farming." Science 296.5573 (2002): p. 1694-97. Web. 22 Feb 2010.

Shortle, James. "The Realitive Efficiency of Agricultural Source Water Pollution Control Policies." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 68.3 (1986): 668-78. Web. 31 Jan 2010.

Weber, Karl. Food Inc.. 1st. New York: Public, 2009. Print.

Willer, Helga. The World of Organic Agriculture. London: Earthscan, 2008. Print.

Food Inc. p.183-218

The readings continue on within the book mostly along the same lines that that have been reiterated by previous authors. One of the first authors discusses modern eating habits and how different they are from previous generations. One of the main reasons modern farming practices are practiced is because it produces such high yields and they are deemed necessary in order to provide for such a large group of people. One of the authors uses the bison/cattle example to make the point that not too long ago, the entire population was provided for without using such practices. I think this has a lot to do with to what people become accustomed. Once people, especially Americans, become accustomed to something, it is very hard to live without it. The cheap and efficient way of consuming processed foods is like a drug to the American population and the world abroad. The idea of me not being able to go through the drive through window at a fast food restaurant and only pay a few dollars for an entire meal is something that makes me squirm in my seat. Is it possible for people to return to healthy, non-processed foods? Of course it is possible but how easy that transition would be quite difficult to get started and to maintain.

The reading that really stuck out to me in this part of the book is the section by Joel Salatin. I had mixed feelings about this section. I liked that he provided many answers to the question: What can I do? He provided options such as buying locally and planting a garden. However the viewpoint to which he approached these ideas I saw as pretty extreme. The section where he talked about owning a chicken in your own apartment and blatantly ignore zoning codes I saw as taking things a bit too far. Also, to ignore health food laws? He makes valid points using historical examples about how the law has not always been correct on issues. I have just not gotten to the point with this issue where breaking the law and "defying" the government as Salatin puts it, is the correct way to go about dealing with this issue. Does a change need to be made in the way we consume our food? Yes. Is there something we can all do that can help the situation? Yes. However, ignoring law, no matter how insignificant, is not the way to go about it.

Position Statement

The position I am going to take in my paper is that of safer farming practices. I really did not know which side I was going to take when I started proposing this paper. Both sides have legitimate arguments. Farmers need mass producing farming techniques in order to meet the growing demand for food. Also these modern farming techniques are harming our environment. Before further research I was convinced that organic farming methods were not efficient enough to provide for the growing demand and dramatic increase in population size. Population growth and demand for food will be my hardest argument to counter because the world’s population is growing at such a rapid rate. But after reading Food Inc., I have come to understand that there are many organic farmers who have actually had an increase in their food production since going organic.

Food Inc. 92-177

The main argument that the author makes in the first half of the reading deals with the use of corn to produce and ethanol fuel force. The author makes very good points with statistics that strongly support his argument. It is a definite shame that so much food that is going to produce fuel that could be used to feed the billion people around the world that are starving. I could not agree more. However, I am going to respond to this reading probably a little differently than many people will. The author states that there in no shortage if fuel. Which yes technically is true, we are forgetting the enormous demand for oil both domestically and around the world. Oil production is the highest it has been in the history of the world. The supply of this oil, however, is depleting. You would have to have been living under a rock for the past few decades to not hear about the oil crisis our world is facing. The processing of corn to ethanol based fuel is in reaction to the worldwide demand for alternative resources to petroleum based fuels. Here lies the problem of trying to solve a world problem: there is no easy, best solution that is going to make everyone happy. Manufactures chose to use corn to produce ethanol because it is one of the most abundant resources in which to produce fuel. Again I am not saying that the trouble being added to world hunger by ethanol produced fuel is not legitimate, I just wanted to make the point that we have this problem to fix another problem.

So what to do about the problem of the growing demand of fuel? The author, unlike many other people, actually provides and answer to how it is we can begin to use the fuel to feed the masses instead of making it to produce fuel. The answer it to eat locally. Eat foods that do not require it to be shipped half way around the world. If transportation of our food decreases, we can then focus on feeding ourselves, instead of fueling the trucks needed to transport the food needed to feed ourselves. It is simply skipping a step in the food consumption process. The author says that eating less and less meat is a very good way of solving this problem. And again, when trying to solve a world problem, if we started to consuming a significantly less amount of meat, we would see a book written on behalf of meat producers on how eating locally is ruining the lives of meat producers. And round and round we go.

Food Inc. p 3-64

The one part of the film that really stood out to me was the aspect that most of the major food corporations were unwilling to comment on the film or declined to be interviewed. I think this sent a powerful message about the views of the kinds of attitudes many of the big companies had about the production of their own products. I got the feeling that they had a “don’t ask don’t tell” mentality about how their food is made. We as Americans show up to the super markets and see the food neatly placed on the shelves and our thought process stops there. We rarely think of how did this food get here? What were the methods used in the production of this product? We often sacrifice health and/or moral integrity for efficiency and value. If we can get a product that tastes good for cheap, Americans rarely ask questions. The average American would much rather have a double cheese burger from McDonald’s than a homemade salad with organically grown ingredients. I am this average American of which I speak. So it is difficult so have such knowledge provided in Food Inc. and still have reluctance when changing my eating habits. Both the big companies and the local farmers were reluctant to be interviewed for this project for one main reason which the author clearly states: fear. These farmers’ livelihoods depend on contracts with these companies such as Tyson. These companies have such power of the farmers that if the farmers were to speak out against these major corporations, the farmers’ contracts could be revoked and their economic livelihood would be destroyed. It was how this message was displayed in the movie with simple text rolling across the screen that this message was strongly conveyed. The makers of the movie did not need many fancy visual effects for this message, like the author said, they spoke for themselves.

The readings from the film very well supported the arguments of these major corporations not being willing to participate. The author said that it was not his intention to take such an anti-big business approach but to provide arguments for both sides and be able to reach a broad audience. “My goal was to reach a larger audience than just the food activists by including many divergent points of view about the system. Unfortunately, the industrial voices proved to be difficult to include” (33). I understand the author’s point he was trying to make but I have a hard time believing that it was not his intention to make the major food corporations look bad. I agree, however, that once there was further investigation of this matter that the insecurities about the major food corporations were impossible not to reveal.

Research Prospectus and Bibliography

For my research topic I am going to focus on and research farming techniques and the major affect it has on the environment and especially our water supply. Since the founding of our nation, there has been a major change in the way we farm our agricultural goods. Farming as a whole is completely different from the way it was done 250 years ago. Thanks to advances in technology, we can produce more goods, at a more efficient rate, for less money. The question I propose in the paper, is at what cost? What are the techniques used for which we have had these great advances in the production methods of our agricultural goods? What damages have the farming practices of today had our landscapes, rivers, and streams? When one thinks about how farming has changed in America over the past 250 years one can gather the arguments of my paper before I even begin. 250 years ago one would picture a single man plowing a field with a single-lane plow pulled by an ox. How much negative effect can such practices have on an ecosystem? Then today, one would picture the modern agricultural techniques practiced on farms all across America. They picture fleets of 50 foot wide combines tilling, planting, and fertilizing in one smooth sweep on a never ending corn field. It doesn’t make much effort or thought to realize that the modern day farming practices have a much more adverse effect on the surrounding ecosystem.

One main area of focus and concern with this issue is the use of pesticides within these modern practices. One of the things that made farming so difficult before modern fertilizers is the loss of crops due to poor soil and falling victims to insects and animals that would feast on the crops. However today, with modern fertilizers, and soil enrichment chemicals, the yield produced by crops is astronomical compared to pre-modern practices.

The problem ensues when these chemicals are washed away by rainwater and make their way into rivers and streams which then make their way into watersheds and our water supply. It is this same water from our rivers and streams in which we use for drinking, cooking, and bathing. The United States Department of Agriculture estimated that 5 million people die each year from water-borne illnesses. 4 million of these being children die of diarrhea because their digestive systems are not equipped to digest such chemicals. In order to fix this problem, we must determine where these contaminations are coming from. Another problem is that a majority of these contaminations are coming from non-point sources, which are sources from which one particular source cannot be determined, but only narrowed down to a group of possible locations where these contaminates entered our water supply. Point sources, on the other hand, are sources that can be narrowed down and therefore corrected.

Because of their high yields and enormous profit margins, farmers are set on farming practices that continue to poison our water supply and deteriorate our ecosystems. At the same time, the negative effects these farming practices have on our environment are too severe and apparent to ignore. So what do we do? This paper will look at the causes and effects on modern farming practices and what is being done to limit and correct such effects.

Bibliography

Baker, Andy. "Fluorescence properties of some farm wastes: implications for water quality monitoring." Elsevier Science 36.1 (2002): 189-95. Web. 31 Jan 2010.

Feather, Peter. "Voluntary Incentives for Reducing Agricultural Nonpoint Source Water Pollution." Economic Research Service (1995): n. pag. Web. 31 Jan 2010.

Geldreich, Edwin. "Concepts of Fecal Streptococci in Stream Pollution." Water Envirnomental Federation 41.8 (1969): 336-52. Web. 31 Jan 2010.

Johnson, Scott. "The On-Farm Costs of Reducing Groundwater Pollution." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73.4 (1991): 1063-73. Web. 31 Jan 2010.

Shortle, James. "The Realitive Efficiency of Agricultural Source Water Pollution Control Policies." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 68.3 (1986): 668-78. Web. 31 Jan 2010.

Wayne Forest Movie Response

Again, like the speaker on Monday, if it weren't for being in this class and seeing this, this is a topic of which we would have probably never heard of. It was especially interesting because it is something that is extremely local to Ohio University. To have so much of the forest land within Athens County is something that makes this topic seem that much more important.

The idea proposed by this documentary was very interesting. It is an idea that seems too elementary to be true. While thinking about it, it only makes sense that if you leave an environment to itself, it will naturally re-flourish. Many people see that when an ecosystem is destroyed, it is a lost cause and nothing can be done about it. Many people's effort when it comes to saving wildlife is preventing the damage before it happens which, obviously, is the best way to do so. However this is not a topic of nature care that we hear too much about. It would be nice to think that once an ecosystem is destroyed, it will naturally return to its full potential on its own, which unfortunately, is sometimes not the case. This is an interesting case study and its definitely worth a closer look.

Speaker Response

I thought the speaker today was very informative on a topic that unless we were in this class, we would probably never would hear about. The one topic of discussion that he brought up that I think is important to talk about is the idea of ownership. He pointed out that these forests for which he is advocating are national and state parks. Normally when you think of something belonging to the nation or state we think the government owns it. While technically they do, he put it in a way I had never really thought of before. These forests belong to the people. The purpose of these parks and forests if the enjoyment of citizens of the surrounding community and abroad. This being the case, the natural state of these forests should suffice and the scorching of these trees and environments is unnecessary.

Research

While thinking about what I wanted to do for my research topic I obviously wanted to do something that was important to me or at least something that interested me. As I have said before I would hardly consider myself an environmentalist but one thing that I have always enjoyed is the water. When I went to go see the movie Flow it really got me thinking about water in a way that I really never had before. It got me thinking about water as a natural resource and a limited one at that. We as a society consume freshwater at an alarming rate while hardly considering the effects of doing so. I use water every day and never have I ever stopped to think about the water cycle and what a truly amazing process it really is. My family and I love going to the lake and always get upset when we see such a beautiful landscape littered with trash and pollution.

While researching this topic I would like to examine what are the biggest threats of pollution that are facing our freshwater supply today. I would also like to research the differences between the core and periphery. Also, I would like to focus on the cycle of water when dealing with sanitation and sewage. Ultimately I would like to find out what effects we, as humans, have on the cycle of water.

Final Part of Lost Mountain

I believe the difference in the two minds explained by Berry is simply the difference between the coal mining companies and the local population. The rational mind belongs to the coal companies because it says within the rational mind profit is the bottom mind. Obviously the coal miners are not interested in much else than gaining profit the coal. Another important point is that the rational mind is explained as individualism and this is an important point because many times in the book Reece refers to the importance of community and the lack there of within the coal mining industry, but that sense of community is one of the things that keeps the local population strong. The sympathetic mind favors the organic and the wild which is obviously siding with the local population whose main concern is the preservation of their local environment.

The first example the last part of the book where Reece exhibits his sympathetic mind is when he participates in the RFK in EKY. This really gives Reece an opportunity to experience firsthand the true interests of the local people and the pride they have in their land. The visit of Robert Kennedy was a big sign of hope for the local population because they were finally getting the sort of national attention that they deserved. Normally politicians sided with big business and the coal companies but the RFK visit exemplified the slow progress the effort was making. The second example of where Reece uses his sympathetic mind is when he files a complaint with the coal mining company. Reece explains this as one of the only true resources a normal citizen has against the coal companies. This was a significant part of the book because Reece had observed the effects of strip mining by himself and with other locals but not standing side by side with the people who were causing such devastation. Even though Reece came to this story as a journalist, it is obvious he truly cares about the situation.

The quote that really stuck with me towards the end of the book was “As a consumer-driven culture, we have chosen to no longer think of the world as God-given. It’s too convenient. Instead, here in Kentucky, our forests and streams are supposed to be protected by a Department of Natural Resources, because that’s all we see them as—simply a resource” (230). This quote really hit home with me because I am absolutely guilty of thinking the earth as simply a resource as I have said in an earlier blog. I think we do have the right to utilize the earth to fit our needs however this book is proof, with an undeniable composition of evidence, of the negative effects that sort of thinking has on the environment. Reece goes on to say that we forget to see the “value” in the world and that we don’t appreciate what the natural landscape has been put on this earth for, for us to enjoy it, not profit from it. We as a human race see the world as a means to an end. Once that end is met, we no longer care about or appreciate what we have just utilized. We have gained our profit and if we have destroyed an ecosystem, so be it. As I have said in an earlier blog, the reason many people put up with such treatment of our environment is because of what we demand as a race. We put up with strip mining because we demand energy and a cheap and efficient rate and strip mining for coal is one of the most efficient ways to meet that end. So the issue becomes not whether or not to simply care or not care about the environment, but the way we live our lives.

Flow

The movie Flow was a documentary film about the problems affecting one of our most natural resources: water. The film described the water cycle for every purpose for which it is used, everything from drinking, to bathing, to waste management. It showed one sequence on the water cycle where it showed that we drink the same recycled water that we have previously urinated. The first part of the movie explained water cycles and showing that our clean water supply is dwindling. It seems hard to believe with 70% of our planet being made of water that the supply is dwindling but only a small percentage of that water is drinkable.

The second part of the movie closely examined many situations all over the world where the supply of freshwater is being threatened. Globalization and big business seemed to be the major source of the problem. Most of the dire situations abroad seemed to be taking place in countries such as India, Argentina, and a country where the filmmakers spent a lot of time was Lesotho. The big corporation that was causing problems for the local people and local ecosystem in one example was Coca-Cola. Through interviews with locals we had found out that before the soda giant came to that part of the country, their water supply, farming, and overall environment was healthy and self-sustaining. Soon after the factory opened the water supply dwindled and farming yielded a fraction of what it used to. All of those examples seemed distant until they had a part of the film that dealt with a problem occurring in Michigan. Nestle, the water bottling giant, who makes many well-known bottled waters, was pumping water from the local stream and depleting the water supply to the area. Local activists took the company to court over the fact that Nestle was profiting from water they did not own and they did not have the rights to. Initially the court found favor with the activists. However after an appeal the court granted Nestle the rights to continue pumping and selling the water from local streams.

Just like turning on a light switch with electricity, we as a society take for granted the pleasure of walking over to a faucet and getting clean and unlimited drinking water on command. We rarely, if ever, think about where that water came from and how much of it we are consuming. Throughout the movie we see that in many other parts of the world, this easy access to clean water is not the reality. The movie also talked a great deal about dams and how many times they do much greater harm than good. One of the activists talked about the World Bank and their inefficiency of money distribution when it comes to providing clean water. One thing that he said that really caught my attention was the fact that many small villages and towns simply need a small water well to pump water from the ground, not a big billion dollar dam. The phrase he said was something along the lines of the World Bank is able to spend a million dollars in one place but not a thousand dollars in a thousand places. This movie really made me appreciate water as a natural resource and just how really valuable it is to the human race.

As the reading continues, Reece's arguments exhibit the same main emotional tactics that accompany irrefutable statistics. He plays on nation wide fear that is often associated with big business and government which is corruption. He continues with the issue of the coal companies simply not caring about the local environment or the local people as a whole. Which, according to the statistics and stories, seem to be undeniably true. The ignorance of the coal executive to pay for or even acknowledge the damage that they are going to this region is understandably difficult to handle for the local inhabitants. He pushes again the environmental aspect when he talks about going on the flying squirrel exhibit and continues providing an ever-growing list of evidence on how these mining practices are killing the environment of this part of West Virginia.

Lost Mountain Assignment #1

The very effective argument tactic Reece utilizes in this book is the personal and emotional connection he has to the issue. He does not observe from a removed perspective gathering what people have told him about the issue. He is driving through these mountains and seeing firsthand the effects strip mining has on this ecosystem. He provides numerous stories of locals he as personally known and met whose lives have been negatively affected by these mining practices. One point that Reece brought up early in the book really illustrates the kind of message he is trying to convey. That point is on page 17 when Reece points out that the explosives being used in these coal mining strategies are the same explosives that were used by Timothy McVeigh in the Oklahoma City Bombing. This is a foreshadowing to later in the reading where Reece says that strip mining is a form of terrorism.

Like any other environmentalist, Reece uses the destruction of the environment as his main argument. He utilized vivid descriptions of the former beauty of the blue and green rolling mountain side in contrast to the now black and grey, flattened coal mines. He goes on for pages describing the physical landscape that the mining sites have become. He does a very good job of painting the picture of what these mines look like in addition to the sporadic black and white pictures places throughout the book.

The last thing I would describe myself as would be an environmentalist however this does not mean I don’t care about the environment. I believe humans and the environment interact more mutually than people realize. I’m not going to argue that many things humans do have a negative effect on the environment because they do. However humans have lived off the land since the beginning of the human race and I believe that coal is a natural resource that humans have the right to utilize to provide for themselves and their fellow human race.

Coal Discussion

My initial reaction to the con website is that their facts were more straight forward and transparent. They gave solid facts that clean coal plants simply do not exist in the United States. The video that I viewed where the man was standing outside "inside" the new clean coal plant clearly explained that clean coal plants in the U.S. do not exist. One thing about this website is that it did not really do much to offer an alternate solution to fuel. It mentioned wind energy and other sorts of alternatives but does not really much advocating for alternate sources. The pro coal video did not really give many detailed facts about clean coal technology other than it was a good thing. this lack of information on their part reinforces that anti-clean coal site saying that clean coal is not that solid of a system in he United States. However, given the current financial situation in the U.S. coal does strongly appeal to the economic side of interests. This site is saying that coal is affordable and readily available to the Unites States. While this is true, they choose to ignore the fact that coal is a limited and soon to be extinct resource.

In this debate the ideal that is at stake is deciding what is the best natural resource for the U.S. both economically and environmentally. Clean coal technology is the production of coal so that the CO2 emissions are captured and stored so that they cannot be released into the atmosphere. The future for pro-clean coal companies is that they plan to continue to make coal production cleaner and safer. The future for anti-clean coal groups is to do away with the use of coal and begin the creation and use of alternate fuels. The major argument for pro-clean coal companies stating the facts that coal usage accounts for a very large majority of electricity sources in the United States. Their other argument is that coal is very affordable and dependable. The major argument for anti-clean coal groups is that CO2 emissions caused by the burning of coal in processing plants all over the U.S.

The audiences for each argument are different because it can be easily seen that the pro-clean coal ads are appealing to business owners or workers who need an affordable, dependable energy source. The anti-coal group arguments are aimed more toward environmental friendly groups.

The clean coal site is sponsored by the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity which obviously is a group whose main concern is the production of clean coal technologies in the United States. The resources for the anti-clean coal site include The Center for Global Development, IEA Greenhouse Gas Program, and the Sierra Club which are all groups whose interests deal with the environment and who are worried about the affects of CO2 gases have on the environment.

The emotional appeals of the pro-clean coal site are affordability and personal well-being of individual workers and business owners. The emotional appeal for the anti-clean coal site plays on the fact that coal emissions are badly hurting our environment. Both are very effective to their respective audiences because business owners are going to worry about affordability and the well-being of their workers. The pro-clean coal site is effective because the people who would look at this this are environmentally concerned about the affects of coal burning.

The visual effects of the sites are polar opposites. The visual effect of the anti-clean coal site uses dark colors and meaningful quotes against clean coal technologies while the pro-clean coal site uses bright colors and uplifting stories of real people to say how important coal is to all of us.

Introduction and Interests

Hey everybody. My name is Paul and I am a Junior, Political Science major from Centerville, Ohio. Some of my interests include water-skiing, sports, politics, and movies.