The Demise of Coral Reefs

Though there are many impacts that the beautiful and extremely useful coral reefs are vulnerable to, from natural ware and tear to destruction by other marine organisms, the most detrimental one is manmade. Oil spills are the number one cause of the destruction of coral reefs and are the main reason for the abrupt, rapid disappearance and corrosion of the reefs. According to the federal task force study, 10 % of the world’s coral reefs are damaged beyond recovery and according to the NOAA, two thirds of the world’s coral reefs are being damaged, 58 % of which is due to human activity. Not only is the oil itself extremely harmful to the reefs, but better yet the methods and agents use to clean up the reefs are even more harmful. Coral reefs are an extremely beautiful and valuable resource. From providing stimulus to local economies by providing jobs by way of tourism, fishing, food for humans as well as marine life and lifesaving medicine that stems from the reefs, there is no doubt that the least that can be done is the prevention of the destruction of this resource by oil spills. The effects of oil spills as well as the techniques and methods used in the cleanup process of the spills are fatally detrimental to coral reef communities.

A coral reef is an underwater ecosystem composed of thin layers of calcium carbonate cached by many colonies of coral. Coral, which can be either hard or soft, are miniscule organisms that contain nutrients essential to the life of the reef. Because coral reefs rely so heavily upon the photosynthesis of the coral, they are often found in clear, shallow waters in order to obtain a substantial amount of sunlight. They are even considered primary producers because they reduce CO₂ . Coral reefs also inhabit many different organisms such as sharks, fish, crustaceans, sponges and sea turtles. In fact, coral reefs harbor over one quarter of the oceans biodiversity making them one of the most biologically diverse ecosystems in the world.

Coral reefs are an important, valuable resource not only to the oceanic environment but as well as to the economies of the areas surrounding coral reefs. Ecological economist Pavan Sukhdev, the head of the Cambridge University-based group The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) calculates that coral reefs are worth $172 billion dollars per year to the global economy. As stated before, coral reefs are home to over twenty five percent of the oceans marine species. Coral reefs bring balance to the ecosystem by maintaining the food chain among these twenty five percent of the oceans marine species. The coral serve as food for some marine life that is then food for other animals. Another crucial benefit of coral reefs is, when healthy, they provide great protection to coastlines against tsunamis and hurricanes. Princeton University scientists generated the first computer model of a tsunami strike against a reef protected shoreline. The model establishes that a healthy reef offers twice as much protection as a dead or damaged reef. According to geosciences Professor Michael Oppenheimer “Healthy reefs have rougher surfaces, which provide friction that slows the waves substantially in comparison with smoother, unhealthy ones. This study provides yet another motivating factor for protecting the planet's coral reefs from degradation." Coral reefs are also vital to the fishing industry. The quarter of the world’s fish that coral reefs harbor fuel the fishing industry. According to the NOAA, scientific studies have even shown that some fish that live in and around coral are bigger and more abounding than the same exact species found in other areas. Recent medical breakthroughs have even discovered that coral reefs may harbor sponges or coral that contain chemicals that may have medicinal purposes. HIV infections have been treated with AZT, which is a chemical found in a reef sponge. Also found in coral is calcium which can remedy conditions like arthritis and heart disease. Coral can also aid in blood clotting and cleaning the intestines. Coral reefs have so much to offer and are truly a remarkably valuable resource.

Oil spills are extremely harmful to coral reefs. Direct oil contact with the reef, in most cases, results in the death of the reef. Reefs that are exposed at low tides are vulnerable to direct contact with the oil. Soluble oil that mixes with rough waters can result in the water mixing with the oil below the surface. The oil below the surface can then affect the reef while underwater which is less exposure to the reef, but the oil is more toxic at this point. Smothering of the corals can occur when heavy oil mixes with sediment and begins to sink. Bleaching of the reefs can occur when pollution, such as an oil spill, results in environmental stress such as increased temperatures of the water. This may result in the damaging or death of the coral depending on the duration and fatality of the exposure. Some corals may recover from bleaching and then experience slowed growth and reproductive impairment. The level of fatality of coral reef contact with the oil may vary depending on the coral species, the life stage, the exposure, the composition of the oil at the time of contact, the duration of the exposure to the oil and the time of year of the spill. Reefs that are in coral reproduction and early life stages are especially vulnerable to oil. The recent BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has led to the death of many underwater reefs. With these dead reefs being at a depth of 4,600 ft., Pennsylvania State University Professor Charles Fisher Junior acclaims the death of the reefs to contact with the oil, chemical dispersant depleted oxygen from organisms consuming the oil, or a combination of the

three. About 40 different groups of coral were looked at and 90% of them were either dead or dying.

There are various methods used in effort to clean up an oil spill near a coral reef. The decision on which method should be used depends upon the location of the spill, whether or not it is a remote area, availability of response equipment and manpower, issues regarding disposal

of waste and whether or not the positives outweigh the negatives of that said option of oil removal. Any efforts to restore the reefs should not cause additional impact to the reef. One response method used is booming, which is when barriers float on the surface of the water to trap surface oil. The surface oil is then sucked up by vacuum or other methods of collecting the oil from the water. This method is frequently used to control oil at the surface of the water and to stop the oil from making it to the coastline. It is almost like a prevention because it supposed to stop the oil from ever coming into contact with the reef. However, they must be used with caution because they can further damage the reefs, especially if the water is rough. Another response method is the use of dispersants. They are applied to the effected reef using an aerial spraying system. Dispersants are used to break down the oil and are biodegradable. The time period in which it takes to decide whether or not to use dispersants is very short because they are only supposed to be used if the oil is moving away from the coral reef. Another method that is used is in-situ burning. This is when large amounts of crude oil aren’t burned off the surface of the water. It requires fewer personnel and less equipment. The goal of an effective response method is to minimize the damage to the reef and also make sure that the reef is not further harmed. When responding to a cleanup method, vessels must be careful not to cause further

damage to reef with the anchor, dragging lines or ballast water which is used to remove a grounded vessel from a coral reef. Ballast water may be discharged and if it is it contains eggs, larvae, spores and other organisms that are not relative to that ecosystem which could throw off the balance of the coral reef. Some of the methods BP chose to use in the cleanup of their recent oil spill were to skim the oily water and setup a protective boom right away to stop the surface oil from reaching the coast. BP also sent out 1,900 gallons of dispersants just two days after the spill to break down the oil. They also tried in situ burning to rid the surface on the oil.

Some of the most popular techniques used to clean up the oil spills are in fact more detrimental to the coral reef than the oil itself. Because the well-being of the surrounding marine

life takes priority over the recovery of the reef, the safest methods for the coral reefs are sometimes not used. Also, it just so happens that the most popular technique used for oil removal is also the cheapest and easiest one, in situ burning. In situ burning removes a lot of oil in a short period of time. It removes 90% of the oil and requires less equipment, fewer personnel, less logistical support and produces the least amount of waste material. In situ burning has never been used at a coral reef spill site; in situ burning produces a lot of smoke and combustion products. The effect of the method of booming and skimming is efficient and keeps oil away from the coastline. However, this method can’t be used in shallow waters or heavy waves. The use of dispersants is convenient because they can be used in any type of weather during any time period. In a lot of countries the use of dispersants is the primary option when responding to an oil

spill. One problem with dispersants is that it can’t disperse all types of oil and they are not considered to be 100% effective so other response methods may still be needed. Also, it is

proven that dispersants can actually be more harmful to the reef than the oil itself. Dispersants can delay growth and development and even cause the death of a reef. A study by the Israel Oceanographic and Limnological research, National Institute of Oceanography, researchers found that the dispersants were actually more harmful to the coral than the oil itself. In the study, all of the corals were killed by the dispersants. Thus, dispersants are not a recommended cleanup method when dealing with coral reefs. However, dispersants are still going to be an option because there are just not many alternatives and the response effort is supposed to minimize the impact and dispersants can still somewhat do that. The effects of BP’s 1,900 gallons of dispersant, skimming the water and the boom and the in situ burn resulted in them cleaning up 25,000 gallons of oil within the first few weeks.

Coral reefs are long-lived and very capable of recovering, though a very lengthy process which can be thoroughly delayed by manmade or natural stresses to the reef. It can take damaged coral reef decades to centuries to fully recover and it might not look the same as it did before it was damaged. The recovery rate of a coral reef depends on different factors like severity of the damage to the reef and the location of the impact to the reef as well as the surroundings of the

reef. Repeated impacts to the reef could delay the recovery drastically and could even make recovery impossible. Coral recovers from being damaged by regenerating from coral colonies. It

is much harder for a reef to recover from physical damage like being skimmed by a ship than it is for a reef to recover from oil exposure. It is much worse for a coral reef to continually getting damaged here and there even if it is not severe, this will increase the recovery time and it will decrease the likelihood of the reef reaching full restoration. However, recently there has been a breakthrough in the scientific community and scientists believe that can restore dead coral reefs inexpensively and with ease. Dr. Graham Forrester led a group of scientists into research in which they transplanted a fresh coral onto an almost dead reef. The results looked good as the corals growth rates went up as did the survival of the reef. This could be how BP restores the coral reefs that their oil spill has tragically ruined.

Response methods and techniques must change and evolve in order to act more efficiently and more carefully in favor of the coral reefs. The response methods now are not enough to save these incredibly valuable resources from the harm of oil spills. According to the ecological studies of the Amoco Cadiz spill (1978), untreated coastal areas recovered within five years and the areas that were treated have not recovered in over thirty years (Goergii) .Clearly there is something wrong with the approach to cleaning up these oil spills. Response teams must adopt new techniques and methods for responses to oil spills; for example, new and improved skimmers that are technologically designed to pick up more oil off of surfaces. Also, Aerogel which is a new lightweight sponge designed for absorbing oil made up of clay and plastic

designed by scientists at Case Western Reserve University. Obviously a change needs to be made because the system now is not working.

There is no doubt that the harmful impact of oil spills on coral reefs must come to a stop immediately in order to keep these beautiful and valuable resources from dying off. Shippers should be more aware of the harm they are causing to the coral reef ecosystem. Oil companies, like BP, should be more careful about the possibility of an oil spill. Whether it is by way of coming up with alternative response techniques, better prevention techniques or better decision

making on what techniques would be most helpful and least harmful, something must be done to save the coral reefs before it’s too late.

Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth

An Inconvenient Truth, in my opinion, is undoubtedly a convincing source in the corner of those who believe that climate change is indeed taking place and is negatively effecting features of earth as well as human beings. The film is filled with what seem to be valid and logical facts that claim the climate change, caused by the actions of human beings, is responsible for many negative things related to nature. Al Gore’s main point of the movie is that human beings are responsible for the climate change that will result in the destruction of the earth. Therefore we must act now and take initiative towards reducing CO₂ levels and reducing the warming of earths atmosphere. Al Gore uses effective pathos to attract the audience, however the content of the film, when further researched, proves to be ineffective due to inconsistent information.

Initially Al Gore’s argument is successful. If someone who’s never researched the issue of climate change and really has no thorough viewpoint on the topic watches this film, they will be convinced that climate change is indeed a serious issue at hand and that mankind needs to act immediately in order to save the earth. However, if one further researches the topic and the arguments that Al Gore is making, one might find that maybe it is not all entirely true. There are many different viewpoints on the issue of climate change and there are many valid arguments made to support each view. There are many strengths to Al Gore’s argument if you believe climate change is indeed occurring and is due to human activity. He supports his claims with evidence of earth’s destruction. For example, At the beginning of the film he shows that the increased level of CO₂ in the past 50 years goes hand in hand with the increasing temperature of earth in the past 50 years. He shows the rapid melting of glaciers in recently as well as the decrease in the thickness of ice in Antarctica. He also shows that as the overall temperatures increase, the heating of bodies of water occurs as well. This results in more severe storms with more speed and faster winds. One major example Al Gore shows of this,that all Americans can relate to, is Hurricane Katrina. Also, Gore claims that with the temperature increase comes a change in ecological niches. This results in the uprising of new infectious diseases such as SARS and the Wes Nile virus. He shows that at the rate of the melting of ice shelves due to the temperature increase that pretty soon Greenland and Antarctica will melt. This would result in severe flooding throughout the world. In America, it would result in the flooding Florida, California and parts of New York, specifically Gore points out that the 911 memorial site would become flooded. All of this information he uses to support his main point is quite convincing.

However, if you do not buy into this theory then the film might only contain a handful of strengths that support Gore’s arguments and many weaknesses that may point to climate change being all “hype”. There are many people that might find An Inconvenient Truth to only be “broadly” accurate. For instance, a judge in Britain ruled that the film could only be showed in schools if “accompanied by a warning about its ‘alarmist’ and ‘exaggerated" claims’.

Not all of the information presented in the film is entirely accurate according to the scientific community. For example, as of 2007, according to information gathered by the American Policy Roundtable, “ More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part “ there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Al Gore is merely a politician and is not scientifically qualified to make some of the claims that he does in the film. If the scientific community is not backing Al Gore on the content of the film, the film loses credibility.

The way the film itself is produced has many strengths and weaknesses. The film targets the viewers emotions more so than anything else. It contains parts that don’t necessarily pertain to the topic of climate change. They try to emotionally get the viewer to empathize with the film. They do this by adding scenes to the film that feature aspects about Al Gore’s life. It contains a scene where Al Gore reflects upon the experience of when his son was hit by a car and nearly died as well as a scene where Gore reflects upon how he grew up on a tobacco farm only to watch his sister tragically die of lung cancer at a young age. Also, when explaining how if Greenland and Antarctica were to melt, he shows how this would result in the severe flooding of cities all over the world. He emphasizes that certain cities in the united states would become severely flooded. He especially emphasizes that it would flood the 911 memorial site which he clearly does to emotionally effect the targeted audience, which is the American people. All of this can be considered a strength to the film if you buy into it. However, if you realize that the film is off the topic of climate change and into your emotions than you might consider it to be a weakness of the film. Another weakness of the film is that it contains false information. He shows a chart that says that earths temperatures haven”t been as high as they are now in the past millennium. However, this does not prove to be true as William Broad says; “So too, a report last June by the National Academies seemed to contradict Mr. Gore’s portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium. Instead, the report said, current highs appeared unrivaled since only 1600, the tail end of a temperature rise known as the medieval warm period.” Scientists acclaim the rise in temperature to the natural warming cycle of earth.

The film does reflect something bigger in American culture and society. If the claim the humans are responsible for climate change is true, America is the number one contributor to the problem as America is the number one country in CO₂ emissions in the world. According to Vexen Crabtree , the United States contains 4% of the worlds population but produces about 25% of the worlds carbon dioxide emissions and 36.1% of greenhouse gas emissions. Also, the United States is one of the only countries in the world that has not adopted the Kyoto protocol which is a pact that requires countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. As Americans, it is a part of our culture that everyone has their own vehicle, and the nicest one possible at that. Up until very recently, no one was concerned about environmentally friendly vehicles, gas mileage or the amount of pollution their car emits. It is a cultural issue when it comes to the amount of greenhouse gas emissions the United States is responsible for and as a culture we should be more concerned about the environment.

Overall, An Inconvenient Truth is a well put together and convincing film. However, when further researched there seems to be faulty information and inconsistent data throughout the film. If the scientific community does not believe that l climate change is even an issue, especially not an issue caused by human beings, then I am forced to believe that An Inconvenient Truth is truly just “hype”.

Works Cited

"Arguments Against Global Warming, Evidence Against Global Warming - The Public Square." American Policy Roundtable | Non-Partisan Public Policy Organization. 2007. Web. 25 Oct. 2010.

Broad, William J. "From a Rapt Audience, A Call to Cool Hype." The New York Times. Nytimes.com, 13 Mar. 2007. Web. 24 Oct. 2010.

Crabtree, Vexen. "The USA Versus the Environment: Oil, Pollution and Kyoto." Vexen Crabtree's Websites: Forcing Humanity Onwards. 4 June 2002. Web. 25 Oct. 2010.

Harris, Tom. "Global Warming, Scientists, Al Gore Climate Change." Canada Free Press: Online Conservative Newspaper, News, Politics, Editorials. 12 June 2006. Web. 25 Oct. 2010.

Soltis, Andy. "What's Wrong With Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth." Web log post. Greensboring. 12 Oct. 2007. Web. 25 Oct. 2010.

Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth

An Inconvenient Truth, in my opinion, is undoubtedly a convincing source in the corner of those who believe that climate change is indeed

taking place and is negatively effecting features of earth as well as human beings. The film is filled with what seem to be valid and logical facts

that claim the climate change, caused by the actions of human beings, is responsible for many negative things related to nature. Al Gore’s main

point of the movie is that human beings are responsible for the climate change that will result in the destruction of the earth. Therefore we must

act now and take initiative towards reducing CO₂ levels and reducing the warming of earths atmosphere. Al Gore uses effective pathos to attract

the audience, however the content of the film, when further researched, proves to be ineffective due to inconsistent information.

Initially Al Gore’s argument is successful. If someone who’s never researched the issue of climate change and really has no thorough

viewpoint on the topic watches this film, they will be convinced that climate change is indeed a serious issue at hand and that mankind needs to

act immediately in order to save the earth. However, if one further researches the topic and the arguments that Al Gore is making, one might

find that maybe it is not all entirely true. There are many different viewpoints on the issue of climate change and there are many valid arguments

made to support each view. There are many strengths to Al Gore’s argument if you believe climate change is indeed occurring and is due to

human activity. He supports his claims with evidence of earth’s destruction. For example, At the beginning of the film he shows that the

increased level of CO₂ in the past 50 years goes hand in hand with the increasing temperature of earth in the past 50 years. He shows the rapid

melting of glaciers in recently as well as the decrease in the thickness of ice in Antarctica. He also shows that as the overall temperatures

increase, the heating of bodies of water occurs as well. This results in more severe storms with more speed and faster winds. One major

example Al Gore shows of this,that all Americans can relate to, is Hurricane Katrina. Also, Gore claims that with the temperature increase

comes a change in ecological niches. This results in the uprising of new infectious diseases such as SARS and the Wes Nile virus. He shows

that at the rate of the melting of ice shelves due to the temperature increase that pretty soon Greenland and Antarctica will melt. This would

result in severe flooding throughout the world. In America, it would result in the flooding Florida, California and parts of New York,

specifically Gore points out that the 911 memorial site would become flooded. All of this information he uses to support his main point is quite

convincing.

However, if you do not buy into this theory then the film might only contain a handful of strengths that support Gore’s arguments and

many weaknesses that may point to climate change being all “hype”. There are many people that might find An Inconvenient Truth to only be

“broadly” accurate. For instance, a judge in Britain ruled that the film could only be showed in schools if “accompanied by a warning about its

‘alarmist’ and ‘exaggerated" claims’.

Not all of the information presented in the film is entirely accurate according to the scientific community.

For example, as of 2007, according to information gathered by the American Policy Roundtable, “ More than 17,000 scientists have signed a

petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part “ there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release

of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s

atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Al Gore is merely a politician and is not scientifically qualified to make some of the claims

that he does in the film. If the scientific community is not backing Al Gore on the content of the film, the film loses credibility.

The way the film itself is produced has many strengths and weaknesses. The film targets the viewers emotions more so than anything else.

It contains parts that don’t necessarily pertain to the topic of climate change. They try to emotionally get the viewer to empathize with the film.

They do this by adding scenes to the film that feature aspects about Al Gore’s life. It contains a scene where Al Gore reflects upon the

experience of when his son was hit by a car and nearly died as well as a scene where Gore reflects upon how he grew up on a tobacco farm

only to watch his sister tragically die of lung cancer at a young age. Also, when explaining how if Greenland and Antarctica were to melt, he

shows how this would result in the severe flooding of cities all over the world. He emphasizes that certain cities in the united states would

become severely flooded. He especially emphasizes that it would flood the 911 memorial site which he clearly does to emotionally effect the

targeted audience, which is the American people. All of this can be considered a strength to the film if you buy into it. However, if you realize

that the film is off the topic of climate change and into your emotions than you might consider it to be a weakness of the film. Another weakness

of the film is that it contains false information. He shows a chart that says that earths temperatures haven”t been as high as they are now in the

past millennium. However, this does not prove to be true as William Broad says; “So too, a report last June by the National Academies seemed

to contradict Mr. Gore’s portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium. Instead, the report said, current highs appeared

unrivaled since only 1600, the tail end of a temperature rise known as the medieval warm period.” Scientists acclaim the rise in temperature to

the natural warming cycle of earth.

The film does reflect something bigger in American culture and society. If the claim the humans are responsible for climate change is true,

America is the number one contributor to the problem as America is the number one country in CO₂ emissions in the world. According to

Vexen Crabtree , the United States contains 4% of the worlds population but produces about 25% of the worlds carbon dioxide emissions and

36.1% of greenhouse gas emissions. Also, the United States is one of the only countries in the world that has not adopted the Kyoto protocol

which is a pact that requires countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. As Americans, it is a part of our culture that everyone has their

own vehicle, and the nicest one possible at that. Up until very recently, no one was concerned about environmentally friendly vehicles,

gas mileage or the amount of pollution their car emits. It is a cultural issue when it comes to the amount of greenhouse gas emissions the United

States is responsible for and as a culture we should be more concerned about the environment.

Overall, An Inconvenient Truth is a well put together and convincing film. However, when further researched there seems to be faulty

information and inconsistent data throughout the film. If the scientific community does not believe that l climate change is even an issue,

especially not an issue caused by human beings, then I am forced to believe that An Inconvenient Truth is truly just “hype”.

Works Cited

"Arguments Against Global Warming, Evidence Against Global Warming - The Public Square." American Policy Roundtable | Non-

Partisan Public Policy Organization. 2007. Web. 25 Oct. 2010.

Broad, William J. "From a Rapt Audience, A Call to Cool Hype." The New York Times. Nytimes.com, 13 Mar. 2007. Web. 24 Oct. 2010.

Crabtree, Vexen. "The USA Versus the Environment: Oil, Pollution and Kyoto." Vexen Crabtree's Websites: Forcing Humanity Onwards. 4

June 2002. Web. 25 Oct. 2010.

Harris, Tom. "Global Warming, Scientists, Al Gore Climate Change." Canada Free Press: Online Conservative Newspaper, News, Politics,

Editorials. 12 June 2006. Web. 25 Oct. 2010.

Soltis, Andy. "What's Wrong With Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth." Web log post. Greensboring. 12 Oct. 2007. Web. 25 Oct. 2010.

Formal Response

Formal Response

After watching An Inconvenient Truth, it really had an impact on the way I think when it comes to the issue of climate change. I never really bought into all the hype about climate change because I was not directly affected by it and was unaware of the changes taking place due to climate change. I now think that something definitely needs to be done and changes must be made in the way we live our lives. The movie made me willing to do my part in order to save the earth.

The movie starts off with Al Gore explaining what climate change is. He explains that due to the increased levels of CO2 in the past 50 years, the temperatures have increased drastically in the past 50 years as well. He gives numerous examples throughout the movie that show how detrimental such drastic temperature increases are to earth. As temperatures increase, storms get worse because increased temperatures means increased wind and speed of storms. Thickness in ice in the Artic has gone down dramatically and is even starting to melt. Polar bears are dying off because they are drowning and cant’ find places to live. Al Gore also talks about his personal life a little bit throughout the movie. He talks about how he almost lost his son to being hit by a car and also how his sister past away due to lung cancer. The movie finishes with Al Gore giving an inspirational statement saying that we are more than capable to do something about the climate change so we must take initiative.

The central claim, or thesis, of the film is that this climate change is detrimental to earth and dangerous to mankind and we must do something about it in order to preserve this planet. It offers evidence of this by showing how this climate change is destroying some of the most beautiful aspects of our earth such as the melting of glaciers. It also shows how dangerous this climate change is to mankind by showing the increase in deadly natural disasters as well as the increase in new diseases.

The intended emotional appeal of the film is to make the viewer feel apathetic about the climate change. The movie was successful in making me feel this way. I used to not really know what the effects of climate change were nor did I care. Now I know the effects and I feel bad about what is going on and I want to do my part to help. With all the examples of how detrimental it is to nature and, more importantly, how dangerous it is to mankind.
The character of the speaker, Al Gore, is kind of like the one person who is willing to take a stand and do what is necessary to make a change. He goes around, city to city, giving this power point hoping to make such an impact on the viewers that they will feel inspired to make a change. I also did not like how he included little parts of his personal life to make the viewer feel bad and have emotional ties to what he was saying. This character of Al Gore kind of annoyed me. I feel like if it was someone else that I would have not only like the movie more but also would have had more respect for the message he was trying to get across.

Overall, I thought the movie was very effective and got the message across loud and clear. After seeing An Inconvenient Truth I want to make a change in order to keep the earth beautiful, as well as make it a safer place to live.

Rhetorical Defense

Tucker Sorrell Sorrell 1

Melissa Mudd

English 151

2 October 2010

Rhetorical Defense

I originally decided to do my campus history project on our very own Ellis Hall. I figured that would be cool because that is where our English 151 class takes place. I wanted to inform the class on the history of the building. It also appealed to me because I don’t think anyone else had the idea to do the project on Ellis Hall. I looked up information on Ellis Hall and went to the library to find out about the buildings history. Nothing really stood out to me as being that interesting. I found myself becoming bored with the project and realized that I needed to make a change in what building I was doing. I then decided to do the project on the Ping Center. The Ping Center appealed to me because, aside from Baker Center, Ping is the most up to date and state-of-the-art building. Aside from my dorm, Crawford Hall, and some of the buildings that I have classes in, Ping is probably the one place where I spend most of my time. I love going to Ping to work out and play basketball so it seemed only right to do my project on the Ping Center.

For my promotion piece, I at first decided that I really wanted to do a video/commercial. I thought that would be the most entertaining and attention grasping. I wanted to make it funny but also informative at the same time. I wanted to interview people that work at Ping because they probably have a lot of useful information to share with the audience. I also wanted to interview students who were using the ping facility to ask them what they think of the facility, what they

Sorrell 2

know about the facility and any thoughts or comments they would have liked to share about Ping. Even though I ended up doing a brochure, I still feel as though doing a video would have been the best possible promotional piece. I ended up running into problems doing the video. I could not find a video camera and I tried using a digital camera to record the video. I could not figure out how to cut and edit certain parts of the video. Given the opportunity to go back, I probably would have made better use of my time and figured out where I could get a real video camera and help from someone on how to cut and edit the video. This was absolutely necessary because I did not want to just have an ongoing video that looked unprofessional and sloppy. I then chose to do a brochure because, to be honest, I was crunched for time and I figured it would be the easiest and fastest way to go about getting my promotional piece finished.

My audience for my promotion piece would be any Ohio University student/faculty member. I catered to this audience by having an Ohio University colors themed brochure. I also used diction that would make any OU student/faculty member feel like I was directing this brochure at them. The purpose of my brochure was to inform people about the Ping Center and try and make it appeal to them so they would want to take advantage of the opportunity to use this state-of-the-art facility. My piece fulfilled this purpose by pointing out the most appealing parts of the Ping Center. For example I chose to put pictures in of the most popular aspects that Ping has to offer such as the rock wall, the group workout classes and the elliptical machines that support sustainability. My piece also included the brief history of the Ping Center as it has only been around since 1996. It has a picture of the man who the Ping Center is named after, Charles J. Ping. The genre of my piece is informative. It is filled with information about the Ping Center

Sorrell 3

as to inform the audience. I stuck to the genres conventions by putting informative information in my piece that would give the audience insight about the Ping Center. I appealed to pathos, logos,

and ethos by appealing to the demands of the audience. I also used statistics and facts about Ping that would appeal to logic. I made my piece look very professional and legitimate as to appeal to ethos. I chose to include the information that I did because, in my opinion, they are the most interesting aspects of the Ping Center. These aspects are the ones that I feel would appeal most to my audience.

Tucker Sorrell Sorrell 1

English 151

Samantha Mudd

14 September 2010

Introducing Place

Located just ten minutes from the city of Columbus, Grove City is a low

key, suburban area. It can be described as a pleasant town, conservative, and a safe

place to raise a family. It also has its controversies, which may not make it the most

desirable place to live.

Described by one resident of Grove City as “a great place to live if you’re over

65”, this seems to be true as one of the local high schools had their sports levi voted

down. This left the local teenagers with not many extracurriculars to fill their time. So

they turned to partying. Whether it was a short drive to the nearby college of Ohio State

University to party, or just staying local to have a good time, this could possibly be the

cause of the native also making the statement that the town formed him and his friends

into “social deviants”.

With a majority of the population of Grove City being caucasian, it is not a very

diverse city what so ever. One might find that the city itself and its inhabitants give off a

sense of alienation. People are not exactly accepting of one another as one of the main

local issues is the large amount of homosexuals. The majority of the straight population

in Grove City is not accepting of their peers based upon their sexual orientation.

Sorrell 2

All in all, Grove City has its positives and negatives. As a pretty town with good

healthcare and a low crime rate, it may seem to be a nice place to live for some people.

Based upon certain views and beliefs, some people might find Grove City as

unattractive place to live.