A2- Analysis of Article
Alex Bloch, Stahl, English 101
Thesis:
Two of four states with pending legislation to repeal longstanding bans on landfilling yard
trimmings have decided their fate.
Intro:
a. A disposal ban of yard trimmings was implemented, or passed on April 29, 2010. This
restricts yard trimmings to be disposed in the landfills with the regular garbage. They have to
be separated and processed into composts and mulch. Florida didn’t sign off on this policy
because they feel it is necessary to capture more methane from the yard trimmings, and turn it
into renewable energy. The opposition states that the increased methane emissions from the
rejection of the ban, will contribute to the greenhouse gasses in a greater sense than CO2
emissions. Georgia’s decision was different, in that organics and yard trimmings should not
go into landfills because it will harm the environment.
b. Dan Sullivan is a professor of Insect Behavior, Ecology, Biological Control, in New York.
He earned his Ph.D. (Entomology) from the University of California at Berkeley. His current
and background knowledge makes his article-May 2010- credible to audiences that
understand the efficiency of laws and understand their importance. This article refers to
politics, which may make some audience members, that aren’t up to date with politics,
confused. His use of logos, pathos, and ethos is clearly demonstrated and
undemonstrated in this article.
Body 1:
The writer’s use of logos is supported throughout this article about the advantages and
disadvantages of the ban of yard trimmings in landfills, including the outcomes of two
neighboring states. At times I feel Sullivan clearly supported this event with many
details and information. On the other hand, some of his statements could’ve been more
clearly stated.
A&B.
The opponents of this landfill ban repeals say that methane is a greater contributor than
greenhouse gases than CO2, “by a factor of 23 times”. Even though he mentions both
sides of the argument (the good and the bad), he presents facts that could question the
actions that the governor of Florida took. There was sufficient evidence saying that
Crist’s future achievement is that his state could result to “75% recycling by 2020…
spelled out ways in which that goal would be accomplished”. He wants to give recycling
credit to landfill gas capture, which is one ton for each megawatt-hour produced, to
renewable energy facilities using the waste as a fuel will include the capture of landfills
gases. But, Sullivan doesn’t thoroughly explain what a recycling credit is, he expects the
audience to know. He could’ve used some clarification like, recycling credits reduce the
amount of waste that Ecologists will use to calculate to see if a Pollution Prevention Plan
or a Pollution Prevention Planning Fee is necessary. On the other hand, Sullivan explains
and informs the audience more about the law, which also allows landfills to set up
recycling operations for materials like plastic and glass after undergoing a minor permit
modification.
Body 2:
Sullivan’s use of pathos is not clearly stated in this article. This is a newspaper article, so
the author doesn’t use bias ideas in order to convince the audience of believing him or
not. He doesn’t use any stories that move the audience. He tells it how it is, he doesn’t
sugar code it with emotion.
A&B
But, his facts do convey some emotion about the outcome of Florida’s decision. Most of
his support for Florida to repeal the ban of yard trimmings is mentioned through other
sources. For example, lobbyists for the U.S. Composting Council (USCC), called
Florida's move “a step in the wrong direction”. He wants audience to think that Florida is
the enemy and should change their plan. The author puts quotes from other sources who
were correctly cited. They seemed like they know their facts based on their profession.
Furthermore, Matt Flechter, Recycling and Composting Coordinator for the Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality, says that the placement of yard clippings in the
landfill is not their highest and best use of the land. Also, he said there is enough
methane that should be captured from landfills without the yard waste. The writer puts
pictures and descriptions of trucks that help with the composts and the separation of
waste products to illustrate how necessary it is to separate the waste products. The author
uses more facts from people of the same position, which could convey readers to support
that position and not the opposite position because there isn’t much support.
Body 3:
The writer uses ethos effectively so that readers respect him, but since pathos isn’t clearly
used in this article, it’s harder for readers to disagree with him.
A&B
The writer doesn’t turn the audience off because he keeps his emotions and opinions to
himself. Some newspapers have bias even though they are not supposed to, but he
doesn’t use bias in this article. The attitude of the writer is neutral throughout the entire
article. The writer has knowledge of this article, because he uses vocabulary and terms
that could be hard to comprehend by some readers. For example “…a 20-year-old
disposal ban on green waste was rescinded with the passage of HB 569 under the
auspices of creating more methane for capture as renewable energy”. Some readers may
not know what HB stands for (house bill). He clearly knows his material and fills the
reader in on all the facts.
Conclusion:
A. Sullivan’s use of logos and ethos is clearly demonstrated and supported by his interpretation
and the other sources that he included. His sources were also credible which adds to the
support to his article. His facts were not misconstrued, because there was sufficient evidence
of thought and truth. Unfortunately, Sullivan didn’t have a strong emotional interpretation in
the article. Although, his reasons may have lead readers to choosing the better side of the
outcome of Florida’s decision.
B. If Sullivan would’ve used a little bit of emotion (pathos) in the article readers would have
taken a side and either support him all the way or disagree with him, based on his opinions of
the facts.