Comparative Analysis (Final Draft)

Running head: ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE READING COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS 1

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE READING COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS 5

Environmental Justice Reading Comparative Analysis

Delma Alejo

Eastern International College

ENG 101: English Composition

Professor Michele Prezioso

March 26, 2021

The environment has faced a lot of changes from human acts that have brought negative effects that every member of the society seems to suffer immensely from. The challenge is that even when people are noticing the environmental injustices taking place and more so suffering the consequences, the people have remained silent making the situation progress from worse to worst. It is important that the people would understand the situation and make the right move which is to fight for environmental justice. This is stopping to assume what they believe could be wrong and facing the real causes. Bill McKibben in his 2009 article entitled “Waste not, want not” and Derrick Jensen in his article “Forget Shorter Showers” addresses the issue of environmental justice through pointing out specific actions people should be cautious of, as these are the same actions and behaviors that intensely contributes to environmental degradation. In both articles, the authors focus on enlightening the members of public on things to stop and those to embrace to bring sanity back to the environment. In the two articles, the environmental justice issue has been addressed from different point of views but due to the fact that they are addressing the same thing makes the two to connect in some ways. Hence, this essay shall compare and contrast the two articles to determine the similarities and differences.

In the two articles, there is a huge similarity in the sense that the two are addressing environmental justice from the waste and wasteful perspective. Bill McKibben on “Waste not, want not” claims that in the world today, there are over 80million plastic bottles disposed in the wrong way and this makes the environment to get completely polluted (McKibben, 2009). The more reason is that when the waste is accumulated together, it creates a hip of garbage and some even ends up in different water bodies causing water and soil pollution. This is a direct way that human beings take part in experimental injustice and the author using personal experience claims that practicing recycling would go a long way in reducing the amount of garbage. Similar sentiments are echoed by Derrick Jensen where he claims that human beings are entirely responsible for the environmental challenge they are facing for instance global warming (Jensen, n.d). He calls for individual positive change in the way people perceive and handle environmental issues as a way of conserving the environment.

In the two articles, the authors are targeting the same audience but making use of different approaches which are equally effective to get attention and reaction from the audience. For instance, McKibben makes use of a persuasive approach where he uses a language that would persuade the audience to take the action he is recommending. McKibben even makes use of his personal experience to narrate to the audience the scenario for the purpose of creating a clear picture that the audience can relate with and understand. In the article, he has made use of devices like logos, pathos, and ethos thereby making the article highly informative and persuasive. On the other hand, Derrick makes use of an argumentative approach where he first creates a scenario and later uses supporting evidences to argue in support of the idea raised. to make the approach effective, Derrick creates a clear picture that readers can understand for instance industries pollute the environment, reducing water availability a problem that the audience are familiar with, and high amount of plastic bags and bottles disposition (Jensen, n.d). To argue his point on how such issues negatively affect the environment, Derrick provides real examples that create a picture that readers can relate with thereby making his arguments valid and practical.

The two authors have made use of professional yet practical language tone that would make the readers to take the issue being addressed seriously. In the two articles, humor has been avoided but instead serious issues affecting the environment. The serious language tone used aligns perfectly with the magnitude of the issue being addressed. For instance, Derrick uses a clear and precise language to show how human beings only use a fraction of water for their personal use while the majority goes to industries that cause intense pollution at the same time killing the natural water sources. On the other hand, McKibben demonstrates to the people how they promote and maintain waste in different ways and some of the things that can be done to reduce waste and in return do justice to the environment (McKibben, 2009). It is evident that the professional and ethical language used has made the articles to deliver the intended message and in a manner acceptable to all target audience.

In conclusion, conserving the environment is the only justice human beings can do to the environment. Nevertheless, as proposed in the two articles, individuals have responsibilities to play. It is a good thing that the two articles shed light on the issue using a professional language to show the intensity of the issue. Though different styles and approaches have been used, it is evident each author used an approach that he would apply effectively depending on personal writing strengths and abilities. At the end of the day, the message has been delivered in a suitable and effective manner.

References

Bill McKibben, (2009). Waste not, want not: We’ve finally reached a point where we can’t keep hyper-consuming—and that’s a good thing. https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2009/04/waste-not-want-not-2/

Derrick Jensen, (n.d) forget shorter showers: Why personal change does not equal political change: https://orionmagazine.org/article/forget-shorter-showers/