Bibliography:
• Background information about pollution in the Pearl River
• Condition of the Pearl River
• Result of the pollution in Pearl River
• Source of pollution in the Pearl River
• Government’s effort on reducing the pollution
• Problems on the way of dealing with pollution in the Pearl River
Along with development, it’s always pollution. Among China’s fastest developing cities, almost all of them are located along the cost or river. Yet, “it is estimated that more than 80% of China’s coastal water and about 70% of its rivers and lakes are polluted with industrial waste, raw sewage and agricultural run-off.”(Barak, 2009) The Pearl River delta is a typical example of such a law. Being known as “the world’s factory floor”, the Pearl River delta creates one of China’s most prosperous provinces- Guangdong (Cheng, 2009). Yet, as the mother river of this export-reliant province, the Pearl River suffers a lot from the economic growth.
According to a research conducted by Guangdong oceanic and fishery administration, “Guangdong discharged 2.35 billion tons of industrial waste-water into the sea last year, of which only about 84 percent met pollution-control standards”. And pollutions in the Pearl River include “materials such as inorganic nitrogen, phosphate and petroleum, lead, copper, cadmium, mercury and arsenic”. (Qiu, 2007) A multivariate statistical study of heavy metal enrichment in sediments of the Pearl River Estuary proves that, a large amount of metals like Cu, Pb and Zn are existed in the surface sediments of the Pearl River Estuary, “especially in the western shallow region”. The result also shows that these metals are anthropogenic inputs from industrial development and urbanization in the last few decades. (Liu, Lia, Shen, Wang, Wai, & Lia, 2001)
Because of these pollutions, species of fish in Pearl River, the supplement of water resource in areas around Pearl River, and even the South China Sea are threatened. Director of the Guangdong oceanic and fishery administration, Li Zhujiang, points out that “the number of fish species has decreased from about 200 in the 1970s to the current 50”. (Qiu, 2007) The decrease number of fish species reflects not only the poor underwater condition of the Pearl River, but also the trend of limited underwater area. Qiu Quanlin (2007) claims that “since 2003, Guangdong has approved 63 such projects in search of more land for industrial expansion. So far the province has reclaimed nearly 6,700 hectares from the sea.” Besides the damage of underwater environment, toxic materials spread to the nearby environment and threaten people’s health with the flow of polluted water. Research shows that heavy metals from the polluted water of Pearl River are distributed in the crop, paddy and natural soils of the Pearl River Delta. (Wong, Li, Zhang, Qi, & Min, 2001) Moreover, fish, shrimp, crab and conches caught from the Pearl River are also found to contain metals like Cadmium and lead. These kinds of metals will finally go into human’s body with their food, cause cancer and damage the haemopoietic system and the central nervous system. (Liang, 2005) Regardless of all these possible ways that bring the pollution back to human being, according to Greenpeace, the Pearl River supplies drinking water to about 47 million people. Thus, the water itself is a source of pollution to people’s health through diet. Lastly, as the Pearl River ends its trip by entering the South China Sea, all the pollution also goes into the ocean. And the toxic and chemical materials will eventually revenge to human being through seafood, climate change, and other kinds of influences to human life.
Now that we all know the poor condition of the Pearl River and how the pollution is going to influence our life. But where does the pollution come from? Last year, Greenpeace released an investigation on the water pollution of the Pearl River Delta in October named “Poisoning the Pearl”. According to the report, water samples as well as sediment samples from accessible discharging points of five manufacturing facilities in the Pearl River Delta, were found have “high concentrations of a number of heavy metals that are toxic or potentially toxic”. These manufacturing facilities mainly include: printed circuit board manufacturing, printing, and textile manufacturing. For three of them, the concentrations of chemicals “exceeded the limits set by Guangdong provincial effluent standards”. Besides metals, the PH value and the organic chemicals also reflects that the industrial activity is the still a major source of the pollution in the Pearl River. Reut Barak (2009) points out that “pollution in the Pearl River will grow with further industrial transfer and investment, which is directed towards the poorer, upstream provinces of the Pearl River (Guizhou, Guangxi, Yunnan and Jiangxi)”. Thus, pollution in the Pearl River needs an urgent concern, or it might become more serious.
To clean up the pollution, or to stop it from becoming even worse, Greenpeace suggests that both manufacturing industries and government ought to make effort on it. On one hand, manufacturers can reduce the use of toxic chemicals by redesigning their production processes and products. On the other, both national and local government of China related to this issue should “commit to the urgent elimination of discharges of hazardous chemicals”. (“Poisoning the Pearl”)
Living in Guangzhou for more than twenty years, I received a lot of information from various local media about how our government is going to cure our mother river, and how well the achievement is. Records in newspapers shows that the mayor of Guangzhou had begin concerning the water quality of Pearl River as early as 1987. Yet, until year 2008, Zhuang Guangning, the mayor of Guangzhou began leading thousands of Guangzhou citizens swimming across the Pearl River once a year; in order show his determination of cleaning up the mother river. (Document from Guangzhou Government) Even though media worked hard enough to promote our government’s “achievements” every year, environmental organizations and individuals don’t seem to be satisfied with the condition of Pearl River yet. Greenpeace keep on publishing data collected from the polluted river; a lot of facts show that citizens living in some areas near Pearl River are still suffering from the smell and poor living environment because of the pollution of the Pearl River.
Greenpeace points out that after working on curing the Pearl River for so many years, the situation still remains unchanged since the Chinese government didn’t work before the pollution came out.
"While local governments are responsible for abiding by the ambient water quality standards set for their jurisdictions, industries are responsible for abiding by technology-based effluent standards and TEC caps allocated by the government. The Water Pollution Control Law stipulates that companies must design and install water-pollution control equipment simultaneously with the construction of their main production facilities. They must also ensure that their pollution-control equipment runs simultaneously with their production processes, and that it meets relevant effluent standards (the so-called “Three Synchronisations Requirement,”)" (“Poisoning the Pearl”/ similar information can also be found out in the “Document from Guangzhou Government”)
This leaves manufacturers the space to be responsible for the pollution after they made it. Factories can easily meet with the government’s requirement by building up filters or other equipments to reduce the pollution go directly into the river. However, toxics or waste chemical and heavy metals being filtered finally need to find out the way they can go to. Hence, some manufacturers will dump those wastes near river. And those toxics will eventually poison the Pearl.
Besides, the structure of Chinese government also brings difficulties to the execution of environmental protection projects. Reut Barak (2009) comments about China that, “central government evaluates and promotes local government officials according to their ability to show a high level of economic growth in the area under their jurisdiction”. As a result, local governments are seldom willing to invest in environmental protection projects, sice they would rather to invest in the industrialization instead.
Generally speaking, the ways government uses to control pollution to river and the structure of Chinese national and local governments, add difficulties to the protection of the Pearl River. Local media, working as a tool of the government, keep telling us good news about the achievement on the way to cure Pearl River. Yet, we still need to be clear about that, the condition of the Pearl River is still in danger, more efforts still need to be made on it.
Reference:
Barak, R. (2009). “Fighting Pollution on the Pearl River”. China Dialogue. Retrieved from http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/3266-Fighting-pollution-on-the-Pearl-River-
Cheng, J. (2009). “Greenpeace Report on Pearl River Pollution Cites Hong Kong-Listed Companies”. China Realtime Report. Retrieved from http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2009/10/28/greenpeace-report-on-pearl-river-pollution-cites-hong-kong-listed-companies/tab/article/
Document from Guangzhou Government. (2003) China Guangzhou Government. Retrieved from http://www.gz.gov.cn/vfs/content/content2.jsp?contentId=146588&catId=4103
Liang, Q. (2005). “Study links Pearl River pollution to cancer”. China Daily. Retrieved from http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-12/01/content_499322.htm
Liu, W.X. Li, X.D. Shen, Z.G. Wang, D.C. Wai, O.W.H. &Li, Y.S. (2001). “Multivariate statistical study of heavy metal enrichment in sediments of the Pearl River Estuary”. Environmental Pollution, 121(2003), 377–388.
“Poisoning the Pearl”. (2009). Greenpeace. Retrieved from http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/china/en/press/reports/pearl-river-delta-2009.pdf
Qiu, Q. (2007). “Pearl River Waste Harming the Sea”. China Daily. Retrieved from http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-07/25/content_5442610.htm
Wong, S.C. Li, X.D. Zhang, G. Qi, S.H. & Min, Y.S. (2001). “Heavy metals in agricultural soils of the Pearl River Delta, South China”. Environmental Pollution, 119(2002), 33–44.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Green Ads Analysis—SAMSUNG Eco Friendly TV
When I said that I need to analyze an advertisement of an eco friendly consumer product, my friend in China suggested me to go for information about Samsung products. Then, I found out this TV advertisement on YouTube:
It is a one minute video advertisement of Samsung eco friendly TV. Throughout the advertisement, the blue sky and green earth have always been in front of audiences’ eyes. Along with the color green and blue, background music creates a peaceful feeling and a clean and comfortable earth. By using the 3D technology, every scenery appears in this advertisement seems to be true in real life. Green energy structure, trees, grass, and pretty houses can be seen everywhere on the earth. And a pretty green world that seems could only be seen in our dream appears to audiences.
Through moving on the surface of the green earth, audiences are leaded to a Samsung factory. Then, a Samsung delivery truck came out. Following the deliver truck of Samsung, audiences come to a big house with a beautiful garden. And the box with a Samsung TV in it flows out from the truck smoothly until it reaches the land. A scale shows that the box is as thin as 240mm. After that, the box opens like a flower, and there comes the TV. Through several extremely close up shoots, audiences can know that this TV is free of mercury and free of spray. Lastly, the Samsung delivery truck leaves the house, and goes back to the Samsung Recycling Direct. At the end of the advertisement, audiences can see the green earth again. Seeing the delivery truck going through so many green spots, including the factory and the recycling direct, audiences might relate the company’s image with such a green world, and would believe that all Samsung factories are environmentally friendly.
Even though the background music is the only audio effect during this advertisement, there are written information in different places to help audiences understand it. At the beginning of the advertisement, a slogan comes out in front of the green earth “GO GREEN! WITH SAMSUNG ECO TV”, which leads audiences to explore the earth with the camera. When camera arrives at the Samsung factory, there are words telling people that Samsung products are “MANUFACTURED IN A CLEAN ENVIRONMENT”. With symbols and words, the Samsung TV is told to be thin, “free of mercury”, and “no spray”. To illustrate the advantage of being “free of spray”, written information also tells audiences that it has “no air pollution”. Then the word “Samsung Recycling Direct” introduces a service provided by Samsung Company in order to recycle old consumer electronics. Lastly, the sentence “COME, JOIN THE SAMSUNG ECO FAMILY; LET’S SAVE THE WORLD TOGETHER” connects Samsung products with the life of the world. It implicates that if audiences all buy Samsung products, the world can be saved. Moreover, the word “let’s” makes the company become part of its audiences. In these ways, it calls for audiences’ action to purchase Samsung eco friendly product.
According to the language (English) used in the advertisement, and the appearance of the big house, the target audience of this advertisement supposed to be middle or upper class American who cares about environmental problems. As owning a big house with a pretty garden is many American’s dream, most American who can afford it would prefer to live in such an environment. The creation of this peaceful and clean living environment matches target audiences’ dream. So audiences would easily associate that people living in such kind of environment would buy Samsung product, or buying Samsung product would gives people such a living environment. After learning how the eco friendly TV contributes to the environment, with the feeling that the eco friendly TV would bring us a nice living environment like the one in the advertisement, audiences’ desire of purchasing Samsung TV would certainly increase.
Also, the last shoot of the green earth yells at audiences’ attention through the comparison between the clean part of the world and the dirty/ polluted one. This shows a risk to audiences that the area where families don’t use Samsung products would live in the grey world. Or it’s telling audiences that the world cannot be all green since you haven’t bought our product. So, it’s telling audiences that buying Samsung eco friendly product is also saving the world.
Generally speaking, this advertisement is very appealing to people who are pursuing a big house with peaceful, clean, and green living environment.
Yet, there are some points in this advertisement that should be questioned. The first one is for the words used to describe the Samsung factory “MANUFACTURED IN A CLEAN ENVIRONMENT”. Audiences might easily accept this point. Since in the advertisement, the factory is really “green” being surrounded by trees and grass. However, where on earth does the Samsung factory locates in real life? Does the country where the Samsung factory locates in have a good environmental condition? All in all, what’s the definition of “clean” in Samsungs’ perception? Only trees and grass around the factory is clean enough?
Besides, the box keeping Samsung TV opens like a flower in order to create a sense that it’s also environmentally friendly. It might be true. But how about materials that are needed to fill in the box, so that products in the box could not easily be hurt while being transported? When the same Samsung TV is delivered to our house, it would never be that simple inside the box.
Then, the part that shows the amount of mercury contained in the Samsung TV is somehow vague. In the advertisement, half of the TV is filled with mercury, but the other half of it is claimed to be mercury free. So, how much mercury is actually contained in the TV? Is it trying to compare Samsung TV with other brands’? Or is it trying to explain the term “mercury free” in their company’s perception?
Lastly, the green earth showed in the advertisement has a large part being in the “dream” condition while there is a small part being grey and polluted. But the reality is on the contrary. If the real earth is showed in the advertisement, will you still have such a good impression about the Samsung TV?
It is a one minute video advertisement of Samsung eco friendly TV. Throughout the advertisement, the blue sky and green earth have always been in front of audiences’ eyes. Along with the color green and blue, background music creates a peaceful feeling and a clean and comfortable earth. By using the 3D technology, every scenery appears in this advertisement seems to be true in real life. Green energy structure, trees, grass, and pretty houses can be seen everywhere on the earth. And a pretty green world that seems could only be seen in our dream appears to audiences.
Through moving on the surface of the green earth, audiences are leaded to a Samsung factory. Then, a Samsung delivery truck came out. Following the deliver truck of Samsung, audiences come to a big house with a beautiful garden. And the box with a Samsung TV in it flows out from the truck smoothly until it reaches the land. A scale shows that the box is as thin as 240mm. After that, the box opens like a flower, and there comes the TV. Through several extremely close up shoots, audiences can know that this TV is free of mercury and free of spray. Lastly, the Samsung delivery truck leaves the house, and goes back to the Samsung Recycling Direct. At the end of the advertisement, audiences can see the green earth again. Seeing the delivery truck going through so many green spots, including the factory and the recycling direct, audiences might relate the company’s image with such a green world, and would believe that all Samsung factories are environmentally friendly.
Even though the background music is the only audio effect during this advertisement, there are written information in different places to help audiences understand it. At the beginning of the advertisement, a slogan comes out in front of the green earth “GO GREEN! WITH SAMSUNG ECO TV”, which leads audiences to explore the earth with the camera. When camera arrives at the Samsung factory, there are words telling people that Samsung products are “MANUFACTURED IN A CLEAN ENVIRONMENT”. With symbols and words, the Samsung TV is told to be thin, “free of mercury”, and “no spray”. To illustrate the advantage of being “free of spray”, written information also tells audiences that it has “no air pollution”. Then the word “Samsung Recycling Direct” introduces a service provided by Samsung Company in order to recycle old consumer electronics. Lastly, the sentence “COME, JOIN THE SAMSUNG ECO FAMILY; LET’S SAVE THE WORLD TOGETHER” connects Samsung products with the life of the world. It implicates that if audiences all buy Samsung products, the world can be saved. Moreover, the word “let’s” makes the company become part of its audiences. In these ways, it calls for audiences’ action to purchase Samsung eco friendly product.
According to the language (English) used in the advertisement, and the appearance of the big house, the target audience of this advertisement supposed to be middle or upper class American who cares about environmental problems. As owning a big house with a pretty garden is many American’s dream, most American who can afford it would prefer to live in such an environment. The creation of this peaceful and clean living environment matches target audiences’ dream. So audiences would easily associate that people living in such kind of environment would buy Samsung product, or buying Samsung product would gives people such a living environment. After learning how the eco friendly TV contributes to the environment, with the feeling that the eco friendly TV would bring us a nice living environment like the one in the advertisement, audiences’ desire of purchasing Samsung TV would certainly increase.
Also, the last shoot of the green earth yells at audiences’ attention through the comparison between the clean part of the world and the dirty/ polluted one. This shows a risk to audiences that the area where families don’t use Samsung products would live in the grey world. Or it’s telling audiences that the world cannot be all green since you haven’t bought our product. So, it’s telling audiences that buying Samsung eco friendly product is also saving the world.
Generally speaking, this advertisement is very appealing to people who are pursuing a big house with peaceful, clean, and green living environment.
Yet, there are some points in this advertisement that should be questioned. The first one is for the words used to describe the Samsung factory “MANUFACTURED IN A CLEAN ENVIRONMENT”. Audiences might easily accept this point. Since in the advertisement, the factory is really “green” being surrounded by trees and grass. However, where on earth does the Samsung factory locates in real life? Does the country where the Samsung factory locates in have a good environmental condition? All in all, what’s the definition of “clean” in Samsungs’ perception? Only trees and grass around the factory is clean enough?
Besides, the box keeping Samsung TV opens like a flower in order to create a sense that it’s also environmentally friendly. It might be true. But how about materials that are needed to fill in the box, so that products in the box could not easily be hurt while being transported? When the same Samsung TV is delivered to our house, it would never be that simple inside the box.
Then, the part that shows the amount of mercury contained in the Samsung TV is somehow vague. In the advertisement, half of the TV is filled with mercury, but the other half of it is claimed to be mercury free. So, how much mercury is actually contained in the TV? Is it trying to compare Samsung TV with other brands’? Or is it trying to explain the term “mercury free” in their company’s perception?
Lastly, the green earth showed in the advertisement has a large part being in the “dream” condition while there is a small part being grey and polluted. But the reality is on the contrary. If the real earth is showed in the advertisement, will you still have such a good impression about the Samsung TV?
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Environmental News Analysis -- “Fretting About the Last of the World’s Biggest Cats”
On March 6th, 2010, Bill Marsh published a piece of environmental news on the New York Times. The news publishes the declining number of tigers existing on the world. By providing data from experts, Marsh tried to convey the risk that tigers are disappearing on our world. According to him, reasons that lead to the dwindling range of tiger include: the need of tiger-based medicines; illegal hunters’ activities in wildlife sanctuaries; governments’ indifference on the tiger killing issue; and the competition among tiger organizations. In the article, Marsh criticizes the wrongness of Chinese government’s allowing some of its tiger farms to meet with the need of medicinal tiger products. And he also raises his concern about the lack of areas for wild tigers to live in.
Through the word “fretting” and “last” in the headline, Marsh expresses his concern about the issue. And the tone of the headline creates a sense of risk, which asks for readers’ attention.
Then, in the leading paragraph, Marsh connects the topic with the Chinese Year of the Tiger. Such an opening can not only attract readers’ interest, but also drive people to think about the future of human being and wildlife.
In order to prove the risk, experts’ data and opinion are displayed in the news to support the author’s point of view. Below are sources used in the news:
“Experts believe the global wild tiger population has fallen to below 3,000 — less than 3 percent of what it was just 100 years ago.”
“Alan Rabinowitz, who heads Panthera, a group devoted to big cat preservation, says that ever-more-numerous tiger organizations are mostly competing for donors when they should be concentrating on protecting the most promising populations and fighting poachers, the cats’ foremost threat.”
“The possibility that China could lift the ban “is without a doubt the most polarized issue in tiger conservation,” said Ronald Tilson, a director at the Minnesota Zoo and an authority on tigers.”
In the first source listed, Marsh doesn’t explain who the “experts” refer to and which organization or office they are from. Considering these, the accuracy and the liability of the data should be doubted. And this is where my first question comes: Who are those “experts”? Are they professional enough? However, generally speaking, the use of the above sources helps to explain things in detail, and helps readers to understand the author’s opinion better.
Besides verbal information, graphic information also serves in delivering emotional appeal. By using a picture of a healthy tiger in the wild with graphic instructions surrounding it, the graphic information tries to let people know how those tiger killers are using each part of the tiger. In those literal instructions, countries that are using the part of tigers as well as the benefits people can get from the part of tigers are listed. And below the graphic instruction, there are two more photos showing the confiscated tiger skins and areas that tigers exist. Through showing the tiger yelling in a defensive way, tiger skins lying on the ground, and the map showing the decrease number of tigers worldwide, such photos ask for human’s sympathy to tigers, and are reminding people how cruel it is to kill those wild lives, and how serious the problem is for the extinction of tigers.
However, in my opinion, there are not enough effective sources presented in the news.
For the sources about the type of tiger Mr. Putin is interested in, I don’t think it has much relation with other parts of the news. So, my second question is about the use of celebrities in this news. Is the author using the name of Mr. Putin just for attracting readers’ attention?
Besides, for Chinese government’s lifting the ban, Marsh only quoted one people’s opinion in the news, and that is criticizing what Chinese government did. But isn’t there any other opinions? Even though there is no other opinion, how about the opinion from Chinese government, and the reason that it left the ban? At this point, the author provides limited source.
Different from the author’s point of view, for me, Chinese government is lifting the ban in order to protect the sustainable development of tiger. As we have learnt, risk has different definition to people with various cultural, social and economical backgrounds. For some Chinese who are in need of tiger-based medicines, compared with the extinction of tiger, the risk in front of them might be diseases and death. And in their eyes, any medicine in other kinds of medication can not provide them the potency offered by tiger-based medicines. So, to safe their lives, no matter how expensive the medicines are, no matter how hard the government works, they would still find out the way to kill tigers in order to deal with their risk. In that case, government would lose the control of the number of tigers. And even more tigers would be killed because of people’s different needs. However, as government allows “some of its tiger farms to provide parts to meet domestic demand for medicinal tiger products”, people don’t need to use illegal ways to safe themselves. And government can have more control on the number of existing tigers, since they could use scientific ways to decide when and which tiger should be killed. So that pregnant tigers or mother tigers would not be killed, baby tigers would also not be killed until they grow up.
And still, there are other problems that are threatening tigers’ lives but not being shown through sources in this news. According the map showed by the author, Middle East is another area where historic range of tigers exists. But now, tigers there are totally disappeared. The reason behind that might be social development, economical development, industrialized, war, and the exploration of petrol… These might explain the concern Marsh leave to his readers at the end of the news -- the future of wild tigers. As “development” being encouraged by developed counties and local governments, tigers are losing their natural areas to live in, which also lead to their extinction.
In conclusion, the news “Fretting About the Last of the World’s Biggest Cats” convinces the risk of tigers’ extinction and asks for audiences’ attention on this issue. However, sources provided by the author are limited and slant.
Link to the news:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/weekinreview/07marsh.html?ref=earth
Link to the graphic information of this news:
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/03/07/weekinreview/07marsh-grfk.html?ref=weekinreview
Through the word “fretting” and “last” in the headline, Marsh expresses his concern about the issue. And the tone of the headline creates a sense of risk, which asks for readers’ attention.
Then, in the leading paragraph, Marsh connects the topic with the Chinese Year of the Tiger. Such an opening can not only attract readers’ interest, but also drive people to think about the future of human being and wildlife.
In order to prove the risk, experts’ data and opinion are displayed in the news to support the author’s point of view. Below are sources used in the news:
“Experts believe the global wild tiger population has fallen to below 3,000 — less than 3 percent of what it was just 100 years ago.”
“Alan Rabinowitz, who heads Panthera, a group devoted to big cat preservation, says that ever-more-numerous tiger organizations are mostly competing for donors when they should be concentrating on protecting the most promising populations and fighting poachers, the cats’ foremost threat.”
“The possibility that China could lift the ban “is without a doubt the most polarized issue in tiger conservation,” said Ronald Tilson, a director at the Minnesota Zoo and an authority on tigers.”
In the first source listed, Marsh doesn’t explain who the “experts” refer to and which organization or office they are from. Considering these, the accuracy and the liability of the data should be doubted. And this is where my first question comes: Who are those “experts”? Are they professional enough? However, generally speaking, the use of the above sources helps to explain things in detail, and helps readers to understand the author’s opinion better.
Besides verbal information, graphic information also serves in delivering emotional appeal. By using a picture of a healthy tiger in the wild with graphic instructions surrounding it, the graphic information tries to let people know how those tiger killers are using each part of the tiger. In those literal instructions, countries that are using the part of tigers as well as the benefits people can get from the part of tigers are listed. And below the graphic instruction, there are two more photos showing the confiscated tiger skins and areas that tigers exist. Through showing the tiger yelling in a defensive way, tiger skins lying on the ground, and the map showing the decrease number of tigers worldwide, such photos ask for human’s sympathy to tigers, and are reminding people how cruel it is to kill those wild lives, and how serious the problem is for the extinction of tigers.
However, in my opinion, there are not enough effective sources presented in the news.
For the sources about the type of tiger Mr. Putin is interested in, I don’t think it has much relation with other parts of the news. So, my second question is about the use of celebrities in this news. Is the author using the name of Mr. Putin just for attracting readers’ attention?
Besides, for Chinese government’s lifting the ban, Marsh only quoted one people’s opinion in the news, and that is criticizing what Chinese government did. But isn’t there any other opinions? Even though there is no other opinion, how about the opinion from Chinese government, and the reason that it left the ban? At this point, the author provides limited source.
Different from the author’s point of view, for me, Chinese government is lifting the ban in order to protect the sustainable development of tiger. As we have learnt, risk has different definition to people with various cultural, social and economical backgrounds. For some Chinese who are in need of tiger-based medicines, compared with the extinction of tiger, the risk in front of them might be diseases and death. And in their eyes, any medicine in other kinds of medication can not provide them the potency offered by tiger-based medicines. So, to safe their lives, no matter how expensive the medicines are, no matter how hard the government works, they would still find out the way to kill tigers in order to deal with their risk. In that case, government would lose the control of the number of tigers. And even more tigers would be killed because of people’s different needs. However, as government allows “some of its tiger farms to provide parts to meet domestic demand for medicinal tiger products”, people don’t need to use illegal ways to safe themselves. And government can have more control on the number of existing tigers, since they could use scientific ways to decide when and which tiger should be killed. So that pregnant tigers or mother tigers would not be killed, baby tigers would also not be killed until they grow up.
And still, there are other problems that are threatening tigers’ lives but not being shown through sources in this news. According the map showed by the author, Middle East is another area where historic range of tigers exists. But now, tigers there are totally disappeared. The reason behind that might be social development, economical development, industrialized, war, and the exploration of petrol… These might explain the concern Marsh leave to his readers at the end of the news -- the future of wild tigers. As “development” being encouraged by developed counties and local governments, tigers are losing their natural areas to live in, which also lead to their extinction.
In conclusion, the news “Fretting About the Last of the World’s Biggest Cats” convinces the risk of tigers’ extinction and asks for audiences’ attention on this issue. However, sources provided by the author are limited and slant.
Link to the news:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/weekinreview/07marsh.html?ref=earth
Link to the graphic information of this news:
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/03/07/weekinreview/07marsh-grfk.html?ref=weekinreview
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)