Optimistically Viewing the Future of the Environment

In the Washington Post article, "Bush to Protect Three Areas in the Pacific," the author, Juliet Eilperin, explains President Bush's environmental action to protect three large areas of the Pacific Ocean. Bush has protected almost 200,000 square miles of the ocean by establishing the three areas as national monuments, restricting oil and natural gas extraction, as well as commercial fishing. The author maintains a "forgive but don't forget" mentality throughout the entirity of the article by recognizing Bush's previous faults in terms of environmental protection, and then applauding the President's most recent green actions. "While he has resisted imposing mandatory curbs on greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change and has opened large areas of the nation to drilling, mining and other use of resources, by the end of his term he will have protected more ocean than any person in history."

In Salon.com's article, "Bush's Seven Deadly Enviromental Sins," the author, Katharine Mieszkowski, presents seven different enviromental faults that Bush has made during his presidancy and the seven different plans that Barrack Obama must initiate in order to correct Bush's mistakes. Only three of the seven solutions provided in the article were officially proposed by the Obama campaign, the four remaining solutions seem to be posed by the anonymous, yet "leading environmentalists" that she references in the second paragraph. "We also invited leading environmentalists to outline Barack Obama's mission for cleaning up the nation's land, water and air." Who are these leading environmentalists? Are they super heros? If they are super heros I can understand why their identity can't be revealed, however I have reason to believe that these "leading environmentalists" are, in fact, not super heros but that the term "leading environmentalists" provides no explanation or indication of a specific expertise.

Although the author attempts to include a bright outlook for the future of the environment by listing solutions, the way in which she presents Bush's faults ultimately leads to the downfall of the editorial. Each section that highlights a "deadly sin" is used to emphasize the severity of a specific issue and assign guilt to the Bush administration. Each Obama solution supplies a sense of urgency fueled by the "or else" fear tactic that she so clearly presents by emphasizing Bush's faults, instilling fear in the reader.

It is more benefical to focus on the newly instated contributions to marine life rather than linger on the environmental faults that the President has made because the latter perspective directs attention towards the past by criticizing Bush, while the former perspective highlights the future wildlife growth that the marine monuments will bring. The pessimistic Katharine Mieszkowski seems to be entreched in the past, while the optimistic Juliet Eilperin embraces the future.