Analysis Of Andrew Nikiforuk's 'Tarmageddon'

Canadian journalist, Andrew Nikiforuk, makes a connection the negative effects that tar sands have on Canada’s economy and environment, in his essay “Tarmageddon: Dirty oil is turning Canada into a corrupt petro-state.”Nikiforuk’s goal is to help his audience realize the political downfalls within Canada and its failed efforts to protect both citizen and environment. It is clear that Nikiforuk’s target audience are those who are well educated in both politics and the environment. His use of environmental and political jargon, makes evident that he want to pull in and inform his target audience. Nikiforuk is able to develop a critical and straightforward tone throughout his essay to connect the audience while strengthening his argument.

Nikiforuk demonstrates both extrinsic and intrinsic ethos appeals. The author is very versed in the fields of energy and economics and has written a fair amount of work for Canadian Business, The Globe and Mail’s report on business, along with many more. The author makes more of an emphasis on intrinsic appeals, highlighting his knowledge with his formal writing and critical tone. Nikiforuk demonstrates the uses of political and environmental vocabulary when discussing the subject of oil. Explaining the fact in which Canada is growing ever more dependant on oil revenue and oil volatility, as well as to mention that the component bitumen, requires so much work to become a dirty yet superior compound. The author is able to assert his dominance over the subject with the usage of comparison and repetition. Continuously making reference to the way Europe and Saudi Arabia create their oil, demonstrating to the audience how is very knowledgable not only domestically, but internationally. The comparisons not only correlate the appeal of ethos, but connect as well to that of logos. Providing proof to his statements, not only with a continuity of facts, but with strong statistics and outside information. Nikiforuk makes constant reference to the environmental damages that oil collecting creates. Discussing in paragraph 9 that the creation of mines not only creates a large volume of waste, such as: cyanide, naphthenic acids, cancer-makers, etc. But also destroys large amounts of forestry. Nikiforuk is not only able to provide a firm statement about the destruction of nature through oil collection, but is able to provide trustworthy information to support it. As well as supporting his argument through facts, he utilizes present …show more content…
Nikiforuk uses the appeal of pathos sparingly, but firmly. Continuously pricking at the patriotism of Canada, the author is able to pull in the audience. Again, he uses the strategy of comparison and repetition, as he constantly compares Canada to Saudi Arabia in the standing for who is superior. Nikiforuk mentions in paragraph 14 the Kyoto Protocol and how Canada was the only signatory that completely abandoned it’s target, making it sit very close to Saudi Arabia on the chart. Correspondingly, he states that Saudi Arabia’s talk at Copenhagen lasted longer than Canada. Taking a hit at Canadian pride, Nikiforuk is able to utilize his limited pathos to strongly affect his audience. Furthermore with the patriotism, he is also able to create a connection with the environmentalists. Emphasizing on the fact that the mines, tar sands and steam plants create major damage to the environment. Having pollution as such a huge issue, the author is able to make the direct connection to worldly problems and his