http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/07/food.foodanddrink
This article presents one solution to current global warming: “eating less meat.” It says meat production creates more greenhouse gas because animals, particularly cows, emit methane, a global warming factor 23 times more effective as carbon dioxide.
The title of the article attracts people’s attention since not many people have heard that eating less meat will reduce global warming. Also, a giant picture of meat brings curiosity, making the readers to continue reading the passage. The catchy title and picture seemed a little suspicious to me at first since I found it too sensational.
The article starts off with “Dr Rajendra, chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which last year earned a joint share of the Nobel Peace Prize, said that people should then go on to reduce their meat consumption even further.” This statement seems pretty powerful since Pachauri is such an influential person. The writer is also appealing to the sense of authority. He often quotes “The UN's Food and Agriculture Organization” in order to prove to the readers the validity of his article.
However, the writer sometimes leaves out important information or rather a lack of further explanation. For instance when he says, “The agency has also warned that meat consumption is set to double by the middle of the century”, he doesn’t explain how or why such thing will happen. For me as a reader, this statement sounds doubtful and untrustworthy since I have no idea where such conclusion came from. Also, when he says, [ “Tomorrow, Pachauri will speak at an event hosted by animal welfare group Compassion in World Farming, which has calculated that if the average UK household halved meat consumption that would cut emissions more than if car use was cut in half.”], there is no evidence whatsoever to back up such statement.
Other than eating less meat, the writer includes an alternative point of view: “[However, he also stressed other changes in lifestyle would help to combat climate change.’That's what I want to emphasize: we really have to bring about reductions in every sector of the economy.']”. This helps the readers to take a look the issue in diverse perspectives. Furthermore, the writer introduces several counter arguments from Professor Robert Watson who says that “government could help educate people about the benefits of eating less meat, but it should not 'regulate'.’Eating less meat would help, there's no question about that, but there are other things.'” By presenting counter arguments, the writer is making his article a more balanced and dependable source.
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기