Nuclear Power is the Only Green Solution

Lovelock's article is about how the earth is in immediate danger from all the pollution. Lovelock wants everyone to understand why we are in peril and what we need to do to change if we want to survive. He uses language tools to make his audience understand.

First of all, I think his entire article is an overstatement. Lovelock completely dramatizes the whole issue on global warming. He compares the warming of the Earth to a fire that is "accelerating and almost no time is left to act" (par. 6). The earth is slowly becoming warmer, not burning like a fire. Lovelock also doesn't cite anything. He has no sources to backup his claim. His article isn't reliable at all. Lovelock does use some good personifications and analogies to try and convince his audience and I will analyze those.

One of the main language tools Lovelock uses is personification. The first example is in the third paragraph. "The floating ice of the Arctic Ocean is even more vulnerable to warming". This example gives the ice in the Arctic human characteristics because it will be more 'vulnerable' when it is warmed up. Using descriptive words makes the reader feel like they understand how the ice feels, when the ice doesn't actually have feelings.

The second example, "[civilization] has to use nuclear... now or suffer the pain soon to be inflicted by our outraged planet." (par. 16), gives our planet feelings which is also personification. The planet itself cannot be outraged, but Lovelock gives it this description because he wants the reader to feel related to the earth. The earth has always been given lots of personification in writing and speaking. We refer to the earth as a 'her' or as 'mother earth'. When the audience feels like they share the same feelings as the earth, they have more empathy and would more likely help the earth in a similar way as a person.

The main language tool that Lovelock uses is analogies. An analogy is "a kind of comparison in which something unfamiliar is explained by a comparison to something more familiar." (R&W pg. 94, Brett c. McInelly). Analogies are a good tool to use because they are easy to remember and understand. They are especially useful in scientific papers when the majority of the population wouldn't understand unless more simple comparisons are used.

Lovelock says, "...climatologists warn a four-degree rise in temperature is enough to eliminate the vast Amazon forests...[and] the world... would lose one of its great natural air conditioners". Everyone knows the beauty of an air conditioner. Especially in the summer. The difference between summer heat and an air conditioned room is incredible. Lovelock puts this analogy into his paper to demonstrate what the difference in temperature would be if the pollution problem isn't taken care of and we lose the Amazon. Even those who don't know much about global warming can appreciate what this would be like.

Another analogy is in paragraph 6 which says, "It is almost as if we had lit a fire to keep warm, and failed to notice... that the fire was out of control and the furniture had ignited". This, like the previous analogy, is a comparison so the reader can visualize the temperature difference. I think this comparison is also used to show the damage that global warming would create. Lovelock doesn't just say that the fire is out of control, but also that the 'furniture had ignited'. Lovelock demonstrates that if nuclear power is not implemented, the results will leave irreparable damage.