Order 1381350: Executive Summary

Pelayo 1

Andrew Pelayo

ENGL 1310.101

Professor Kristen Jackson

November 14, 2018

Argument Analysis of "Cesar E. Chavez National Monument,

California, and the Future" in The Hour of Land

In July of 2015, my family and I took a vacation to Seattle, Washington to visit a family

friend. While in Seattle, we took a quick trip to Mount Rainier National Park and rode the Mount

Rainier Gondola. As the gondola traveled to the next destination, I observed the breathtaking

skyline and was in complete admiration of nature’s architecture. In The Hour of Land , published

May 31, 2016, author Terry Tempest Williams (“Williams”), begins with a personal story of she and

a friend visiting the Cesar Chavez National Monument, which leads to her bringing forth her

arguments as to why it is important for people to participate in conservation and why others may

choose not to participate in conservation efforts. Williams focuses on the negative effects when

conservation is ignored in support of capital gain. Williams also implores the importance of human

beings collaborating as a whole to better society, and overlooking cultural differences, can achieve

equality and conserve the earth. The main argument and ethical issues I plan to address are: 1)

Who actually decides what is ethical in pursuit of conservation efforts?; and 2) Who do we entrust

to appoint people who will follow protocol with what is considered ethical? While the author

provides a personal account and history of the detriment that people and industrialization have

affected earth, the author fails to provide any probable solutions or suggestions for the readers to

follow. I plan to provide potential solutions in an effort to obtain a sustainable conservation goal.

Pelayo 2

We have an environment where monetary and environmental objects do not always meet

in the middle. Value(s) would need to be internalized and assessed by all, but this more than likely

will be on a personal basis. “Our institutions and agencies are no longer working for us. It is time

to reimagine the wilderness movement as a movement of direct action, time to reimagine our public

lands as sanctuaries, refuges, and sacred lands. Time to rethink what is acceptable and what is not.”

I would explain that they want people to change their ways of viewing nature/national monuments

(that is, they don’t give a call to action which is easy to fulfill, rather, they seem to try to open our

eyes and wake us up to something. Before you get into why this is not a good way to go about the

argument, or lacking somehow, you have to first establish what the argument is and how they go

about doing this. That is what this paragraph should be focusing on, as opposed to a whole other

source

The real issue at hand is how do we decide whom decides what is ethical and who

determines what is beneficial for the future when it comes to preserving national parks and

monuments. Several personal suggestions would be: 1) confirm how much expansion and

industrialization of earth’s resources is actually required and safe for the environment; 2) How

much does one person really need?; and 3) Is the overconsumption of resources really a need or

just greed? Environmental surveys could be assessed in order to determine yearly consumption

and place a cap on the percentage required to sustain recommended consumption. After these

surveys, a panel of global environmentalists could assist with advising corporations and

communities on energy conversation and proper disposal of waste.

Humans tend to be reactive and not proactive for the most part and do not foresee any

issues until it is necessary. There was a recent report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change that states the planet will reach the crucial threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7

Pelayo 3

degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by as early as 2030, precipitating the risk of

extreme drought, wildfires, floods and food shortages for hundreds of millions of people (Miller

& Croft, 2018). While this statement would be sufficient to motivate some individuals in

conservation, this may not be enough to motivate others. I believe some people simply will not

participate in conservation due to their disbelief in conservation efforts, or they do not have the

time to participate.

Ultimately, my plan is to address what is necessary versus industrialization for political

and economic gain. In a true conservation effort, information could be gathered to reflect the

impact of over-consumption and diminishing resources. In a grassroots fashion, flyers or emails

could be sent requesting that the community donate a minimal amount or petition their

congressman in an effort to secure and financially support national parks. While I believe opening

up a reader to all that the author has expressed in her article, I believe that action is necessary.

Small campaigns concerning conservation can be started, small community meetings on how to

conserve at home and in the community, and monthly neighborhood litter collection. My youngest

sister’s school has a community garden that encourages the students and parents to grow their own

vegetables and fruit in an effort to inspire them to eat a healthy diet and to respect their

surroundings. My parents’ neighborhood has a yearly community outreach wherein volunteers

gather and plant trees in parts of the neighborhood. I do believe starting the conservation effort(s)

while children are young has a tremendous impact on their perception of what their surroundings

should be and how much they actually need. When time and effort is put into a particular project,

I do believe it leaves a lasting impact.

After remembering how I felt when I looked out over the gondola and observed Mount

Rainier’s skyline, I could not help but wonder, how much longer will we have such landscapes if

Pelayo 4

people refuse to support conservation. What will happen if people turn a blind eye and do nothing

to push forward with legislation to fund the protection of national parks? If all national parks were

to slowly disappear, future generations would have to read about prior landscapes and could only

admire these landscapes in photographs. Neither of my suggestions force people to participate,

they only spread information and provide a type action for those that do want to participate. Small

efforts can be made be a portion of the population and this could make an impact, but this is truly

a deep ethical question that individuals will have to make. Unfortunately, the downfall for the

human race and past behavior is an overwhelming need to expand, dominate, and increase

resources. Those that would benefit from conservation would be the entire planet. Opinions on

conservation, values, and ethics will always vary, but the final goal should be to reach common

ground. What can be a downfall is assuming a good majority of people will be sympathetic to the

author’s personal account versus the earth’s current condition. The consequence(s) for not

conserving could be damaging for all, but only time will tell.

Pelayo 5

Works Cited

Miller, Brandon and Jay Croft. “Climate Change. New IPCC Report.” October 8, 2018.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/07/world/climate-change-new-ipcc-report-wxc/index.html.

Access October 16, 2018.

Tempest, Terry Williams. “"Cesar E. Chavez National Monument, California, and the Future"

The Hour of Land. Sarah Crichton, 2016.