Sunday, November 17, 2013

Sandpiper Pipeline Article Analysis

SANDPIPER PIPELINE
In reading the article by Patrick Tsai entitled, “The Sandpiper pipeline: Enbridge profits and the destruction of local farms and livelihoods”, it is evident that the transportation of crude oil can affect all of us. This article addresses a growing concern, which is how these pipelines have leaks and then pollute the land around it. Specifically, if Enbridge does build the sandpiper pipeline, farms and land across North Dakota and Minnesota will have the potential risk of eventually being contaminated by a leak. The picture shows the plans for where Enbridge might place the pipeline.
This article, however, states that local resident have taken steps in opposing Enbridge through organizing a group called the Carlton County Land Stewards. According to the article, Enbridge focuses on the job opportunities related to the new pipeline, but the Carlton County Land Stewards oppose this through looking at how the pipeline will affect the land.

ANALYSIS
Understandably, it is important to analyze an article like this, because it is important for readers to know if it is a biased representation, just the facts, or someone’s logical conclusions. The three areas to look at are ethos, pathos, and logos, and they are how the author tries to persuade you in to thinking one way or the other about an issue. Either the article will have credible facts (ethos), logical conclusions (logos), appeal to the reader’s emotions (pathos), or a combination of these. If you would like more information about ethos, pathos, and logos, follow this link: http://pathosethoslogos.com/
The article is very convincing in reasons why the pipeline would be a negative affect for the area, but this is mostly because the author focuses on the farmer’s stories and not on how the pipeline could help the area. Take a look at the video used in the sandpiper article by following the link below:
           http://www.youtube.com
Obviously the author wants the readers to feel a sense of sadness and pity toward the farmers. By including videos and using statements, such as “swatch of trees would have to be cut down affecting … maple syrup production”, it is evident that Patrick Tsai is on the side of the land owners. A few more words that evoke an emotional response include: destruction, risks, and protect.
As far as the use of ethos is concerned, the author, Patrick Tsai, is credible in the fact that he writes for the Institute and Agriculture Trade Policy organization and has a degree in biology. This fact, however, just proves that he would be biased in writing an article that supports land preservation. He provides a few credible examples, such as stating that over 300 oil spills have gone unreported in the past two years, but these examples always agree with his bias. Because of this, the article’s persuasive elements are largely based on pathos, not logos or ethos.
 
REFLECTION
While reading, I thought of multiple questions about the pipeline including:
·         Is there a better way for Enbridge to transport the oil?
·         Is the railroad any safer since many spills occur through this transportation already?
·         In today’s economy, shouldn’t an opportunity for more jobs be considered a positive thing?
I am not saying that I think the residents are wrong or that Enbridge is wrong either. My argument for this article is that it only addresses one side of the issue, so instead of getting caught up with one side, I want to understand more about why the pipeline is a good project to go forward with.
When it comes to this particular article, readers will be interested in the possibility for oil spills with this pipeline, because this pollution ultimately affects the crops and therefore the food quality and prices we pay on those goods. Readers can also think about considering the possible economic growth through projects like this. If you would like to read more articles about the sandpiper pipeline, use the following links:

 

No comments:

Post a Comment