ATAR Notes: Forum
VCE Stuff => VCE English Studies => VCE Subjects + Help => VCE English & EAL => Topic started by: Arun_V on June 05, 2018, 07:34:55 pm
-
Following the recent debates about climate change and its claims of being an environmental issue, many writers have expressed their opinion on an online article. Ross Gittins, the editor of the economic section of “The Sydney Morning Herald”, expresses his opinion, to the Australian public and the Australian government, through his online article “What a relief that climate change doesn’t exist”. He flippantly contends that climate change is an environmental threat and that the Australian government is not taking necessary actions to reverse it. In response to Gittins article, a comment was made by Marija, an animal activist, who allusively states that climate change is a real issue and if it is left undealt with, the loss will be great.
From the outset, Gittins creates a connection with his readers by beginning his article with the phrase “As we’ve” and presenting his notion of climate change in a sarcastic manner. This urges the reader to continue reading to find out his outlook on climate change. In addition, the ironic title, “what a relief that climate change doesn’t really exist”, also draws the attention of the Australian public who believe that climate change is real, as well as those who are “deniers” of it. Gittins then flippantly states the view of those who believe that climate change is “not cause(d) by … humans”. Through this, he is able to convey to his readers that the opposition has wrong notion about climate change, which position them to agree with him and to join his side of the debate. He then ironically attacks the leaders of Australia, stating how they “go to international conferences and make pledge(s) to act”, but does not “do much about it”. This raises questions in the reader’s minds, especially the Australian public, about the actions their political spearheads are talking to safeguard and secure their country for the future. Through the excessive use of sarcastic comments, Gittins indirectly presented his notion that climate change does really exist. By opening with this, Gittins was able to hook the readers into reading his article and was able to make visible his opinion on climate change.
After the sarcastic beginning, Gittins presents the readers to the Sir Ivan bushfire that happened at Duneedoo, which was labelled by the authorities as being “catastrophic”. Through this, he is able to create a feeling of fear in the Australian public’s minds about their safety as more vigorous and dangerous bushfires occur each year. Accompanying this is a photograph, which shows the intensity of the Sir Ivan bushfire. In the forefront of the photograph sheep and cattle can be seen, which are the livelihood of many farmers in Australia. In the background, large flames and thick black smoke is present, engulfing everything. As a result, the fear elicited by the readers intensifies and a sense of sympathy forms in the reader’s subconscious for the farmers, whose lives are going to be greatly affected by the changing climate. Through this, Gittins aims to convey the damage climate change will have on Australia if actions are not taken to reverse it. He then raises concern in reader’s conscience by stating that the “longest-standing” and the “most articulate supporter” of action on climate change in the government has “changed sides”. By presenting this with the phrases “just to make you” and “let me remind you”, Gittins is able to convey his message directly to the readers, making them feel as if he is talking to them. As a result, the author invite the Australian public to consider the choices made by the political rulers. Furthermore, the government’s lack of concern for climate change creates a sense of anxiety in the reader’s minds about the future of Australia.
Building on the lack of interest shown by the political leader of Australia, Gittins presents the readers with direct quotes and evidence, which supports the claim that climate change exists. This, coupled with his change to a serious tone, conveys to the readers, the Australian public and the Australian politicians, that climate change is present and it is going to severely impact Australia. Gittins titles these evidence as being found by the “top climate scientists” from the CSIRO and the “Bureau of Meteorology”. As a result, the readers are urged to believe the facts presented to them. The use of “extreme”, “record-breaking” and “critical”, as a means to describe the effects of climate change in Australia, provokes a sense of panic and anxiety in the Australian public’s conscience, urging them to agree with Gittins argument that climate change is real. In addition to this, by stating the terrible climates that “all Australians” will face, such as “increased heatwaves”, “more significant wet weather” and “more severe fire weather condition”, Gittins is able to increase the fear and anxiety elicited in the Australian public’s minds towards the changing climate. Furthermore, he is able to use statistics to oppose the claims made by the climate change deniers. As a result, he is able to strengthen his argument and communicate to his readers about the truth of climate change, as well as its influences on human lives.
Similar to Gittins article, Marija expresses her concern for the damage which will be inflicted by climate change, saying that there are “fires destroying places” as a result of the changing weather. Her passion for animals is made visible from her constantly mentioning the threat faced by “koalas” because of climate change. Furthermore, the frequent mention of koalas, when talking about this issue, conveys to the reader that animals are going to be more severely affected than human. Through this, she is able to create a sense of sadness in the reader’s conscience and generate a thought of guilt, due to the animals being affected by a cause they did not contribute to. Additionally, she states that if nothing was to be done to reverse the effects of climate change, Australians would have to "cry over” the great loss that was caused by climate change. By using the phrase “we must” Marija makes the reader a part of this issues. Consequently, this creates a sense of fear in the reader’s minds, especially the Australian public’s, as she reveals the severe destruction that would affect them.
Thus, both, Gittins and Marija, convey to their audience the severe impact of climate change on all species of life. Gittins facetiously presents the opposing ideas towards the reality of climate change, which enables him to illustrate to his audience his opinion of the issue; that climate change really exist. Whereas, Marija indirectly communicates to the readers about the great loss that will result from climate change and the impact it will have on the animal wildlife.
Mod edit: fixed formatting
-
I think the main weakness here is that you have not made strong statements of Gittins' main arguments. These should be mentioned in each of your body paragraphs as a topic sentence. The same applies to the arguments of the author of the second article (sorry, I can't comment on that one as I couldn't find it on the SMH site). You could be a bit more specific about the audience - what kind of people are the readers of the SMH, what age group and demographic? Also, you haven't mentioned the informal style of Gittins' article (how does this compare with the author of the second article?) Your first body paragraph has too much summary. The second paragraph where you discuss the photo goes off track to discuss politicians and you have missed the opportunity to make a link between the climate issues facing wheat farmers and the graziers likely to have sheep and cattle like the ones in the photo. You should use the metalanguage of analysis - you've quoted examples of expert opinion, statistics, inclusive language and emotive language but you haven't actually used these terms. You could consider Gittins' use of tone and changes of tone too - he starts with condescending and mocking tones but becomes more serious in the second half of his article - why might he use this sequence? Remember too that the experts he quotes are using tones that are different from his own.