Pollan

Michael Pollan made many interesting and persuasive points in his piece on the ethics of eating meat. His discussion really brought to light the question of how far one should go in the defense of animals and their rights. By comparing the excuses that some make defending the mistreatment of animals to the excuses that slaveowners made about keeping slaves, Pollan makes the reader stop and think about what is right and wrong, and makes his audience question some of the ideas they have always had about animals. I thought that his point about how the problem with eating animals lies in the practice, not the principle, was very interesting. His statement that the invisibility of killing operations allows the continued mistreatment of animals is a logical one, and the transparency of operations that he suggests might lead to more public support for humane animal treatment. Overall Pollan presents all sides of the argument clearly and succinctly, and his proposal is interesting. It is important, in my opinion, for people to be more informed about where their food comes from. As long as it continues to come from mysterious factories and impenetrable slaughterhouses, it will be difficult to get humans to empathize with animals' rights and the need for methods of raising and slaughter that enable animals to pursue their "characteristic forms of life."

Dont Cry Over Spilt Milk- Cry Over Spilt Coal Ash

On October 11, 2000 in Martin County, Kentucky a coal waste impoundment broke through into an underground mine. 306 million gallons of sludge rushed down through the breach and flowed into the Wolf Creek and Coldwater Fork rivers, turning the clear waters into gloppy black slop for hundreds of miles. All living organisms in the rivers were killed and the drinking water for 27,000 people was contaminated (NationMaster). On December 22, 2008 in Harriman, Tennessee, the Tennessee Valley Authority's 80 acre coal ash storage pond gave way, spilling what was estimated at that time to be 500 gallons of coal sludge over 300 acres of land up to 5 feet deep and oozing into the Emory and Clinch Rivers (Simone). The amount of sludge that was released in the spill is now being reported as 1.1 billion gallons, almost double the original amount (Mansfield). The flow of waste from the plant was strong enough to damage 15 homes, leaving 3 uninhabitable and displacing all inhabitants indefinitely (Simone). Lives were altered, wildlife endangered, and homes destroyed, all as a result of an entirely preventable incident.

The Martin County spill was claimed to be 30 times worse than the Exxon Valdez disaster, an event that incited national uproar and action to protect the environment. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) spill was more than three times larger than the Martin County spill. We need the same calls for action, the same support for change from coal-based power and the waste it generates; an environmental disaster of this magnitude is a clear indicator that something is wrong with the way we handle the vast amounts of ash we produce. This dangerous substance is piling up in storage sites all over the country, and if steps are not taken to address this issue, future spills could be even more damaging than the TVA and Martin County incidents. If we cannot wean ourselves from coal power entirely, we must ensure that coal ash disposal is a closely regulated process, and the ash itself must be evaluated as an extremely unsafe material and treated accordingly.

Coal ash is the byproduct created when coal is burned for energy or other uses in coal-fired plants. There are three main types of this ash, and these include fly ash, which is light and powder-like; bottom ash, which is coarser and more like sand; and boiler slag, which is also coarse and granular ("What is Coal Ash?"). Once this ash has been created by a plant, it can either be stored in a landfill or a surface impoundment, also known as a storage lagoon or retention pond (Clayton 16). The amount of waste created by coal-fired plants has grown as a result of increased energy demands and more stringent emissions standards: in order to comply with stricter emissions regulations, plants have taken the fly ash that used to be released into the air and they now mix it with water to be placed in storage lagoons (Cappiello). These coal ash lagoons are usually held up by compacted coal ash, which is less stable than earth and reacts poorly with water; it seems like a recipe for disaster to shore up millions of gallons of toxic, wet material with a similarly toxic material that is degraded by water (Clayton 16). These ponds can grow to a size of 1,500 acres, or up to 18 times larger than the TVA storage lagoon (Dewan). Imagine the damage that could be inflicted by the rupture of a storage pond eighteen times larger than the TVA pond. The storage methods for coal ash that are currently in place are unsound, dangerous, and the amounts of waste produced continue to grow every year; it is clear that we cannot continue with these unsafe practices without further environmental disasters.

While the storage sites for coal ash are hazardous and unstable, the real danger lies within the ash itself. According to Mara Hvistendahl in an article for Scientific American, the radioactive trace elements of thorium and uranium present in unburned coal are concentrated up to ten times in the fly ash that results after burning. She quotes a study done for Science in 1978, which concluded that people who were living near coal plants took in radiation from the environment at levels higher or equal to those who lived near nuclear plants. In addition, this study found that fly ash "carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy." Shaila Dewan states on NYTimes.com that coal ash also contains toxic heavy metals, including arsenic, lead, mercury, and selenium; the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined these materials to be hazardous to "human health and water supplies."

Ironically, however, the EPA decided in both 1988 and 1993 that coal ash was not a hazardous waste and therefore no federal regulations or guidelines apply to its disposal (Cappiello). In 2000, the EPA again approached the issue, but made no decisions as to whether or not coal ash should be reclassified, simply stating that they would “require safeguards for coal ash disposal” (Earthjustice). Seven years later, there were still no federal regulations for coal ash dumps, and in Tennessee a flood of black sludge covered 300 acres of land. The lack of oversight by the EPA has led to poorly managed and environmentally unsound storage practices; most storage ponds and landfills are unlined or inadequately lined with clay, which allows the toxic waste to leach into the groundwater and poison the surrounding environment (Dewan). Among 155 landfill and surface impoundment sites examined by the EPA in 2006, 142 had no liner or only a clay one, and two-thirds of the 155 were located near "key waterways," as storage ponds require vast amounts of water to combine with the ash (Clayton 16). This position near waterways, however, means that storage ponds and landfills are poised to do huge amounts of damage and can spread over large distances as they flow into rivers and streams. Earthjustice, an organization of lawyers committed to environmental preservation, cites a recent EPA report that discovered that "unlined coal ash waste ponds pose a cancer risk 900 times above what is defined as 'acceptable'" to those living around them. If the EPA determined that the metals present in coal ash, such as mercury, arsenic, and lead are toxic, then it stands to reason that coal ash, as a carrier of these elements, should be classified as hazardous.

While the best solution would be to find an alternate source of energy that does not depend on coal, for the time being it appears that coal ash is here to stay. If we cannot get rid of the ash altogether, the most important step is for the EPA to reclassify coal-ash as a hazardous waste material; the concentrations of toxic heavy metals and radiation contained in the ash are reason enough to take this step. Once coal ash is established as a hazardous waste, its handling and disposal will be guided by federal regulation and not left up to the individual states with little oversight or monitoring. Reuse of coal ash is another option, but one that needs to be carefully researched to determine the toxicity of the recycled ash. It has been used successfully in place of cement to make concrete, and has been formed into a base for roadways, both of which are viable options for recycling as long as the ash is safely contained and leaching is prevented (Dewan). However, it is a priority for the EPA to first establish clear rules for the storage of coal ash and the maintenance of these storage facilities, ensuring that retention ponds are phased out, as they are the most unstable and dangerous form of storage, and existing retention ponds are moved to dumps. Switching most of the storage to dry dumps lined with impermeable plastic as opposed to clay will reduce the dangers of lagoon spills and groundwater contamination for the time being. While transferring the coal ash to landfills is an expensive option, according to Mark Clayton the cleanup of the TVA spill will cost ten times what it would have cost to put the waste in a landfill (16). Preventing disasters before they occur is key to saving the environment and avoiding extremely costly cleanups.

In 2003, TVA could have transferred the coal ash stored in the retention pond to a dry dump at a cost of $25 million, but decided that it was too expensive of an undertaking (Dewan). TVA is now spending an estimated $1 million dollars a day on cleanup, and the company has reported that it intends to have these cleanup costs borne by increases in the electric rates of its consumers (Mansfield). Unless citizens want to continue paying for the mistakes of poorly regulated, dirty coal companies, action needs to be taken. If firmer regulations were enforced, companies could face fines for their lack of compliance, making safe storage an economic and environmentally-based incentive. Phasing out coal use altogether is ultimately the best option, but it is integral that we first determine what to do with all the toxic waste we have already created, instead of continuing to ignore its existence, or waiting for another wall to burst.

Out of sight should not mean out of mind, and although these ponds or landfills may not be in your backyard, their effects on the environment are far reaching. The toxins they leak could infiltrate your groundwater, or a spill could find its way down a river to your neighborhood. While there is not much that individuals can do to with regard to the handling and actual storage of coal ash besides using less energy, it is important to know that these ponds exist and to support increased regulation and recycling. Coal dumps are filling up all over the country, and new methods need to be implemented to handle the volume of hazardous waste they contain without further damage to the environment. Of all the states in the country, Ohio has the highest number of coal ash disposal sites, with 48, including lagoons and landfills (Clayton 16). The next time one breaks it could very well be a little closer to home.

Cappiello, Dina. “Coal Ash Piling Up Most in Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, Georgia and Alabama.” The Huffington Post.com. 9 January 2009. 29 January 2009. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/09/coal-ash-piling-up-most-i_n_156505.html>

Clayton, Mark. “Coal-Ash Danger Rises.” Christian Science Monitor. 14 January 2009: 16.

Mansfield, Duncan. "Tenn. Presses for details of ash spill cleanup." The Associated Press. 13 January 2009. 2 February 2009.

“Coal Ash Pollution Contaminates Groundwater, Increases Cancer Risks.” Earthjustice.com. 4 September 2007. 29 January 2009. <http://www.earthjustice.org/news/press/007/coal-ash-pollution-contaminates-groundwater-increases-cancer-risks.html>

Dewan, Shaila. “Hundreds of Coal Ash Dumps Lack Regulation.” New York Times.com. 6 january 2009. 29 January 2009. <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/us/07sludge.html?_r=2>

Hvistendahl, Mara. “Coal Ash is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste.” Scientific American. 13 December 2007. 27 January 2009. <http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste&page=2>

“Martin County Sludge Spill.” NationMaster Encyclopedia. 27 January 2009.

Simone, Samira J. “Tennessee sludge spill runs over homes, water.” CNN.com. 24 December 2009. 29 January 2009. <http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/23/tennessee.sludge.spill/?iref=mpstoryview>

“What is Coal Ash?” University of North Dakota Coal Ash Research Center. 27 January 2009. <http://www.undeerc.org/carrc/html/whatiscoalash.html>

paraphrase

Original

“At issue is coal's content of uranium and thorium, both radioactive elements. They occur in such trace amounts in natural, or "whole," coal that they aren't a problem. But when coal is burned into fly ash, uranium and thorium are concentrated at up to 10 times their original levels.

In a 1978 paper for Science, J. P. McBride at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and his colleagues looked at the uranium and thorium content of fly ash from coal-fired power plants in Tennessee and Alabama. To answer the question of just how harmful leaching could be, the scientists estimated radiation exposure around the coal plants and compared it with exposure levels around boiling-water reactor and pressurized-water nuclear power plants.

The result: estimated radiation doses ingested by people living near the coal plants were equal to or higher than doses for people living around the nuclear facilities.”

Paraphrase

According to Mara Hvistendahl in an article for Scientific American, the radioactive trace elements of thorium and uranium present in unburned coal are concentrated up to ten times in the fly ash that results after burning. She quotes a study done for Science in 1978, which concluded that people who were living near coal plants took in radiation from the environment at levels that were similar to or higher than those who lived near nuclear plants.

coal ash draft

On October 11, 2000 in Martin County, Kentucky a coal waste impoundment broke through into an underground mine. 306 million gallons of sludge rushed down through the breach and flowed into the Wolf Creek and Coldwater Fork rivers, turning the clear waters into gloppy black slop for hundreds of miles. All living organisms in the rivers were killed and the drinking water for 27,000 people was contaminated. (Wikipedia.com) On December 22, 2008 in Harriman, Tennessee, the Tennessee Valley Authority's 80 acre coal ash storage pond gave way, spilling over 500 million gallons of coal sludge over 300 acres of land up to 5 feet deep and oozing into the Emory and Clinch Rivers. (Simone) The Martin County spill was claimed to be 30 times worse than the Exxon Valdez disaster, which incited national uproar and action. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) spill was one and a half times larger than the Martin County spill. (Wikipedia.com) Dangerous coal ash is piling up in storage sites all over the country, and if steps are not taken to address this issue, future spills could be even deadlier than the TVA and Martin County incidents.

Coal ash is the waste created when coal is burned for energy or other uses in coal-fired plants. There are three main types, and these include fly ash, which is light and powder-like; bottom ash, which is coarser and more like sand; and boiler slag, which is also coarse and granular. ("What is Coal Ash?") Once this ash has been created by a plant, it can either be stored in a landfill or a surface impoundment, also known as a storage lagoon or retention pond. (Clayton) The amount of waste created by coal-fired plants has grown as a result of increased energy demands and more stringent emissions standards: in order to comply with stricter emissions regulations, plants have taken the fly ash that used to be released into the air and they now mix it with water to be placed in storage lagoons. (Cappiello) These ponds can While the storage sites for coal ash are hazardous and unstable, the real danger lies within the ash itself. According to Mara Hvistendahl in an article for Scientific American, the radioactive trace elements of thorium and uranium present in unburned coal are concentrated up to ten times in the fly ash that results after burning. She quotes a study done in 1978, which concluded that people who were living near coal plants ingested radiation at levels higher or equal to those who lived near nuclear plants. In addition, this study found that fly ash "carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy." (1) Shaila Dewan states that coal ash also contains toxic heavy metals, including arsenic, lead, mercury, and selenium; the EPA has determined these material to be hazardous to "human health and water supplies." ("Hundreds Lack Regulation")

Ironically, however, the EPA decided in both 1988 and 1993 that coal ash was not a hazardous waste and therefore no federal regulations or guidelines apply to its disposal. (Cappiello) This lack of oversight has led to poorly managed and environmentally unsound storage practices; most storage ponds and landfills are unlined or inadequately lined with clay, which allows the toxic waste to leach into the groundwater and poison the surrounding environment. Earthjustice, an organization of lawyers committed to environmental preservation, cites a recent EPA report that discovered that "unlined coal ash waste ponds pose a cancer risk 900 times above what is defined as 'acceptable'." These coal ash lagoons are usually held up by compacted coal ash, which is less stable than earth and reacts poorly with water; it seems like a recipe for disaster to shore up millions of gallons of toxic, wet material with a similarly toxic material that is degraded by water. Among 155 landfill and surface impoundment sites examined by the EPA in 2006, 142 had no liner or a clay one, and 2/3 of the 155 were located near "key waterways." (Clayton)

It is clear that something needs to be done to remedy this situation. First of all, the EPA needs to reclassify coal-ash as a hazardous waste material; the concentrations of toxic heavy metals and radiation contained in the ash are reason enough to take this step. Once coal ash is established as a hazardous waste, federal regulations can then be put in place to better monitor the disposal of this material. Retention ponds must be phased out, as it they are the most unstable and dangerous form of storage- their need for water necessitates their placement near waterways and if they break they are poised to do the most damage as they flow into rivers and tributaries. Dry dumps are safer only if lined with an impermeable barrier, for example plastic as opposed to clay. Switching most of the storage to lined dry dumps will reduce the dangers of lagoon spills and groundwater contamination for the time being, but ultimately the debate comes down to coal power itself and the need for alternate sources of energy. While transferring the coal ash to landfills is an expensive option, according to Mark Clayton, the cleanup of the TVA spill will cost ten times what it would have cost to put the waste in a landfill. Ohio is the number one state with coal ash disposal sites, at 48: 26 lagoons and 22 landfills. (Clayton) The next time one breaks it could very well be a little closer to home.

Sources:

Cappiello, Dina. “Coal Ash Piling Up Most in Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, Georgia and Alabama.” The Huffington Post.com. 9 January 2009. 29 January 2009. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/09/coal-ash-piling-up-most-i_n_156505.html

Clayton, Mark. “Coal-Ash Danger Rises.” Christian Science Monitor. 14 January 2009: 16.

“Coal Ash Pollution Contaminates Groundwater, Increases Cancer Risks.” Earthjustice.com. 4 September 2007. 29 January 2009. http://www.earthjustice.org/news/press/007/coal-ash-pollution-contaminates-groundwater-increases-cancer-risks.html

Dewan, Shaila. “Hundreds of Coal Ash Dumps Lack Regulation.” New York Times.com. 6 january 2009. 29 January 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/us/07sludge.html?_r=2

Hvistendahl, Mara. “Coal Ash is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste.” Scientific American. 13 December 2007. 27 January 2009. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste&page=2

“Martin County Sludge Spill.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. 17 January 2008. 27 January 2009.

Simone, Samira J. “Tennessee sludge spill runs over homes, water.” CNN.com. 24 December 2009. 29 January 2009. http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/23/tennessee.sludge.spill/?iref=mpstoryview

“What is Coal Ash?” University of North Dakota Coal Ash Research Center. 27 January 2009. http://www.undeerc.org/carrc/html/whatiscoalash.html

argumentation examples

Effective Rhetoric Examples

Prose Text

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

This article from the Scientific American is an example of good rhetorical strategy. First of all, the ethos of the author is established right away by the title of the publication- Scientific American. To the reader this indicates that the information contained in the article will be science-based and relatively accurate, as opposed to some editorial articles. Although the article is in a scientific journal, the author also starts out with a story from "The Simpsons" to enable the reader to better identify them. By mentioning a common t.v. show, the author shows that the article is not "too" scientific for everyday readers. Additionally, the author appeals to the emotions of the audience through their fear of radiation and radioactive particles. Comparing coal ash to nuclear radiation, a common fear for many people, is an effective way for the author to convince them of the dangers of coal ash. Finally, by using scientific terms like "millirems" and including quotes from an associate lab director, the author establishes the logos of the argument. Overall this piece uses rhetoric in an effective manner.

Visual

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ats3dClc0No

This video, though short, has a few good examples of effective argumentation. The narrator identifies the participants right away as people who have credibility and expertise on the subject: the National Field Coordinator for Appalachian Voices, the Hurricane Creekeeper, and the Watauga Riverkeeper. The audience recognizes these people as those who care about the environment and the river, and who have experience in this area. The visual images shown are designed to incite the emotions of the viewer. Dead fish, sludgy black water, and a complete lack of activity arouse anger in the audience. As to the utilization of logos, the narrator cites statements from the TVA website indicating that cleanup is underway, but the video provides clear evidence that none is underway, giving the audience good reason to believe that there is little being done. This video does a good job of arguing that the idea of clean coal is not working, at least in its present state.

Ineffective Rhetoric

Prose

http://www.ecologicalhope.org/featured/the-scandal-of-coal-ash-dumps/

This article is not the best example of good use of rhetorical strategies. The author does not really give the audience any reason to listen to her, establishing her credibility only by the fact that she lives near an area where water contamination poses a health risk. However, this does not necessarily make her a trustworthy or an expert. The author also does not inspire the pathos of her audience in a good way; for most of the article it seems like she is complaining about the state of the environment, but not offering any real solutions. She clamors for the reader to be involved, but does not offer concrete reasons or emotional appeals. While she does include some logistical information to back up her argument, most of it is vague; she provides little explanation of her statement that coal ash has claimed the lives of more than 104,000 miners in the past century. This argument attempts to engage the audience, but falls short through a lack of logos and ethos.

Visual
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcUzdUtD7Dw&feature=related

This piece employs almost all of the strategies of rhetoric very poorly. The author gives no indication as to why the audience should listen to or believe what she has to say, and does almost nothing to establish her ethos. In addition, the facts, or logos of her argument are relatively weak. She gets the name of the town wrong, calling it Harrison instead of Harriman, which damages the believability of her argument. Her statements are vague and sometimes unclear; she uses "like" a lot and she does not present her facts very professionally or scientifically. Other than stating the dangers of the fly ash in order to make people fear the effects of the disaster, she does not do a good job of presenting her argument in a clear, factual, and believable way. The viewer sees no reason to listen to her argument, and she basically states that other people should care about this event because she cares, without really giving them good facts or using strategies to appeal to their values.

cradle to cradle

McDonough and Braungart approach their argument for cradle to cradle, eco-effective buildings and products in a different way than Monbiot. First they establish pathos with the reader by adopting a conversational style, drawing their audience in. They ask questions of the reader, making them curious and engaging them in a discussion of possible answers. Their hopeful tone also makes the reader pay attention: they focus not on the problems but the solutions, saying that environmental effectiveness doesn't have to be boring and minimalist.

The authors introduce logos to their argument by explaining the tests they performed during their research, and by using scientific terms like "off-gassed" and "halogenated hydrocarbons." They also discuss retention rates and the testable effectiveness of their ideas, which convinces the reader of the feasibility of their solutions.

Finally, McDonough and Braungart identify themselves as believable sources of information by eplaining their direct involvement in the designing and testing of buildings and products. For example, on page 75 they state that William McDonough's firm designed successful "cradle to cradle" based factories and office buildings. By engaging the reader in a conversation based in personal stories concerning their argument, they establish their trustworthiness and knowledge of the subject, emphasizing their experience and credibility.

Monbiot rhetoric

George Monbiot does an excellent job of incorporating numerous aspects of rhetoric in his argument for fighting climate change. Monbiot's audience is the general population, and like Carson, he has to walk a fine line between being too technical and making his audience understand what he is talking about. As an environmental activist, Monbiot is probably used to speaking in ways that the general population can comprehend, and he does a good job of establishing himself as someone they should listen to.

Monbiot uses ethos in the first paragraph to demonstrate his credibiility; by mentioning that he had previously spoken on climate change, he illustrates to the reader that he is someone whose statements can be trusted and that others have deemed him credible enough to give a lecture on the subject of the environment. He also associates himself with his audience instead of villifying them; by using "we" repeatedly on page xvi he establishes his credibility as someone who understands and empathizes with his audience. He admits that what he says may disturb or offend the reader, which makes him seem trustworthy, in that he will not try to sugarcoat his message or as he says on page xxi, "confirm what you believe to be true." In addition, by conceding the problem, saying that it will be difficult to abandon the comforts of the modern world and that many of the advances we have made are beneficial, he accomodates the fact that the reader may have a dissenting veiwpoint, giving him more credibility.

Monbiot also utilizes pathos in his appeal to the audience in order to generate interest in his argument. He uses various predictions based on scientific studies to incite a sort of fear in the reader. The reader fears that what he predicts may come to pass, and they can become more emotionally invested in what Monbiot has to say. For example, on page 6 Monbio discusses the spread of disease, water shortages, and droughts that could come about as a result of climate change in every part of the world. The audience understands that these changes could affect them and their families.

Ultimately, much of Monbiot's argument rests on the strategy of logos, and he uses a multitude of logical evidence to support his claims. On page xxiii he lists the various organizations, scientific and governmental alike, from which he gathered information. His statements are well-supported by footnotes explaining his statements more fully, especially those that are more scientific or math based. He also cites various scientific studies and papers published on the topic of climate change; for example on page 12 he quotes from researchers at the National Oceanography Centre. Interspersed throughout the article are scientific and technical terms that reinforce the logic of his argument.

Overall, Monbiot uses each of the three concepts of rhetoric skillfully and successfully in order to gain the reader's trust and enable them to fully understand the topic that he is trying to present. He illustrates not only the problems, but also the possible solutions to these problems. By stressing "feasibility" he assures the reader that industrial civilization can still be possible with massive reductions in pollution and energy-saving solutions.