William Peacock
Opinion Piece 3

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/sustainable-development-climate-change-africa-support-by-moha-ennaji-2017-02

1. Throughout this piece it is clear that the author is coming from the perspective that we need to take great steps in slowing down climate change, before it is too late. He lists examples of how countries who aren’t even considered “developed” are doing better/moving faster in some ways then countries like the U.S. is. Not to mention the fact that we now have a President who has appointed someone to the head of the EPA is borderline doesn’t believe in climate change. It will certainly be a interesting next few years for our country, and the planet’s resources as a whole. 

2. There are definitely claims made about what other countries are doing around the world to combat climate change, and he also used information to back it up. For example he says, “Notwithstanding Trump’s reluctance, many countries seem to recognize the imperative to act. Participants in the Africa Action Summit, held on the sidelines of the Marrakesh conference, offered their own commitment to build an Africa that is resilient to climate change and able to advance sustainable development.” This shows that countries that we as the United States have historically exploited and claimed to be more civilized then, is making the change now that could save us all instead of waiting until it is too late.

3. In terms of a lead that starts with a bang, that isn’t the type of method the author tried to go with. Instead he uses facts, data, information throughout to back up his point all while at least mentioning the other sides of the arguments. His closing is the most powerful I think, because he turns the attention to the future and the idea that if governments act we still could make a change in time; but it must start with the people, because if the people don’t put pressure on their leaders then no change will come. 

4. I would say this isn’t the sort of piece that exactly draws people in with a flashy style of writing, it is just full of information that verifies his point. He talks about Trump and politics which is always a hotbed these days, and he may have been able to draw some readers in that way, but for the most part this was directly directed towards a science based audience. 

5. The target audience could be mostly directed towards the more educated, science-based community, however what some people forget to realize is most of the time the people impacted most by climate change are the poor. Unable to go anywhere else, they are forced to endure environmental conditions that those in a higher social standing wouldn’t stand for. “With this in mind, the declaration demands greater efforts to eradicate poverty, ensure food security, and meet the agriculture challenges posed by climate change. And it calls for greater support for climate projects, including through capacity building and technology transfer from developed to developing countries.” This quote restates the idea that we are all in this together, and we cannot leave anyone behind. 

6. It is clear that the author wanted to go step by step in showing the massive impact that climate change can have, and that more importantly even though we may not all feel it now, we will soon enough. Developed countries started the problem, while the undeveloped countries are the ones who will feel it the soonest and the worst. The author wanted to make it very clear that it is no longer an option to stand by and hope that change comes, we must do it ourselves. 

William Peacock
Opinion Piece 2

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jan/27/canadian-scientists-lend-support-to-muzzled-us-counterparts

1. The theme is the idea of governments controlling what scientists can and cannot say/show the public. The author first talks about how Canada had a conservative government and they had been controlled for some time. It is mentioned how 25% of scientists said they had been directly approached to change results in data or information. That is obviously a scary stat, and it is shared to make it clear to the reader just how widespread this issue was in 2013 Canada. It then moves towards the United States and the change in administration and how it may affect what scientists can and can’t make public.

2. Yes it is very clear that the author did a good job in getting facts and data that would back up the stance they take. Once again the stat about how many scientists had been approached is used well, and also mentioned how Canada had been affected during the past government. Programs were cut, funding cut, gag orders put in place, which all sounds very similar to what President Trump has been proposing at the start of his administration thus far.

3. I would say that there isn’t exactly a lead or kicker that starts us off with a bang. The most attention grabbing part of it to start is the headline about muzzled US scientists. That was enough to make me wonder at least what they were talking about, and the beginning first few paragraphs were interesting enough to keep me reading. Then it expanded on the argument being made, backed it up with facts, and then closed it in a well-rounded and positive way. The idea of Canadian scientists now helping US scientists like US scientists did for them during the past administration.

4. Yes it is easy to see where the piece is going, and how it got there. New information is introduced well and used in a way that benefits the case while not making it sound choppy. By the end it may have felt like it was dragging on a bit, but that was only because it was trying to beat home the idea of this could now be the reality for the United States under the new administration.

5. Canada in the past decade is used for perspective when comparing what this change could mean for the United States, which makes it easier to see what could actually happen. Facts are then used to back up the case, and that means that you are more likely to think it is accurate because it has data to support it. There aren’t exactly storytelling elements, it is more of telling you how things were, how things are, and how things could be. It does end in a emotional quote where a Canadian scientist talks about how they will support the Americans just like the Americans supported them.

6. It is clear which side of the fence the author is on, why they are on it, and why other people should side with them also. It is important to have all three of these elements, because without all of these aspects the argument lacks strength and might not be nearly as persuasive. When you read this piece, you leave it thinking that our government may be going backwards when it comes to freedom of speech, but you don’t feel without hope thanks to the help from the international scientific community.