Article Uno: http://www.labor4sustainability.org/articles/5-reasons-why-the-keystone-pipeline-is-bad-for-the-economy/ (Labor Network for Sustainability)
Article Dos: http://keystone-xl.com (TransCanada)
Are you ready for some serious national controversy? No? Well too bad, because have I got a story for you! The construction of the Keystone pipeline has raised lots of heads recently for both the left and right-winged. The potential threat it poses to the environment and the potential abundance of new energy is making people scramble to argue for and against this pipeline.
I found two different sources on this topic, one "pro" and one "con". Each of them display differing usages of language to persuade their readers to their side on this issue. For example, the article on the TransCanada website argues that this project "will be the safest and most advanced oil pipeline operation in North America". They are quite blatantly trying to reassure people that this project will bring no harm to the environment. They also only highlight the good outcomes and not the bad ones of the pipeline, claiming that it will "provide jobs, long-term energy independence, and an economic boost to Americans". I found it interesting that they referred to new sources of oil as "energy independence"; by saying this, they are trying to appeal to the people who value freedom in this country, which is nearly every American. Also, by referring to their audience as "Americans", it gives the sense that these persuaders are trying to include a large number of people, and make them feel like they have a place and that this pipeline will benefit them.
On the flip side, the persuaders for the Labor Network for Sustainability make sure that their negativity towards this national project is heard through their argument. They even describe what the Keystone Pipeline will be doing to the environment will have a "negative impact". They are saying that opening up the tar sands in Canada will not only pose a huge environmental impact, but it could increase the occurrence of national disasters, and in the long run will not even be benefitting the economy, but will make unemployment rise.
What I noticed from these two articles is that the TransCanada side only covers the parts of the issue that will give them the upper hand. The TransCanada website did not mention a word in the article I read about a consequential environmental impact. On the other hand, the article which was con-Keystone Pipeline made their argument stronger by addressing both sides of the issue, both the environmental impact of this project and also
No comments:
Post a Comment