Tarmageddon

[mylittlefrog1218]

Andrew Nikiforuk, in his essay Tarmegeddon, uses lots of examples, facts, research and data to express his worries about the environmental problems Canada could face due to the tar sands in Alberta. He pointed out "it now accounts for 5 per cent of the nation's emissions and pollutes the global atmosphere with 40 megatonnes of greenhouse gases a year. That's nearly double the annual emissions of Estonia or Latvia." so the example Nikiforuk provides immediately gives readers a emotional thinking about negative impact of the process from the tar sands to Bitumen which destroys our environment. The toxic waste after the process ruins the plant, water and kills wild animals, and once the land is mined, it is not sustainable for the plants and in the future, our green area will be less and less.

Question: in the essay Andrew Nikiforuk also directly points out Stephen Harper's position on the tar sands, so does that also means Nikiforuk has opposite political position from Stephen Harper? and this essay has political purpose?

Comments

[paisley1002]

I really like what you said. Using some examples, this is a good way to show readers what you want to express. I also think this article is talking about the effect to whole country, which is related to the political purpose.

[japanlove]

I think it is hard to say definitely that Nikiforuk is the opposition from the Conservatives. We can probably assume his political view from this article; however, he did not declare his political view within the article. Again, although Prime Minister Stephen Harper is the child of an Imperial Oil executive, he may not be the only one who has a final-say in policy makings. I find Nikiforuk's negative attitudes toward Stephen Harper and Ken Boessenkook. Therefore, he may committed ad hominem in this regard.

[almac82]

I agree that Nikiforuk uses emotive language to demonstrate his points. His description of the environmental destruction the tar sands are having really does leave the reader feeling that this is Tarmageddom.
His whole essay demonstrates that he is opposed to the politics surrounding the tar sands; this becomes especially clear when he makes reference to Stephen Harper being the son of a imperial oil executive and not believing in climate change.
I'm curious to if this impacted the way you interpreted the article? Did you find his obvious political stance distracting from the information he was providing?