Environment and Politics Discussion
Rhetorical Situation: Blog Entry for the Washington Post. Your role: Syndicated columnist. You are a respected thinker about current events with an intelligent opinion. You don’t assume everyone agrees with you, and you don’t think those who do, are stupid; still, your goal is to persuade them that your position is the most reasoned and important for public policy or attitudes, etc…. Goal: to intelligently persuade Guidelines: The readings on conservation and preservation and environmental history, etc might be the most helpful for this essay. Consider the following from Dr. Reed Noss (he used to be here at UCF) et al, write in Bolder Thinking for Conservation: “In contrast to policy-driven targets, scientific studies and reviews suggest that some 2575%of a typical region must be managed with conservation of nature as a primary objective to meet goals for conserving biodiversity.” They then suggest taking the middle– 50% — of all regions (so 50% of the land and water in the US) should be managed for conserving biodiversity if we wish to keep civilization working. This would mean a total re-working of development and economics in this country. Still, their warning is stark. In your first sentence, make a claim about the future of the United States and how reformist, radical, or even against US environmental priorities should be in the next 20 years. You might consider what you think is at stake, what the trade-offs should be, or lines we should or should not cross. Support your proposition with the readings, and in this essay, be sure to specifically consider and include Abbey’s book as one reference. Keep these stylistic goals in mind for blog-writing: you may use first person, be compelling (here, use the readings well), and understand that your audience is an interested public using the internet as a civic platform and tool. Use APA citation style for this assignment because it will present well.