Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Do you really want to delete this prezi?
Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.
Make your likes visible on Facebook?
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
Transcript of The Environment
Transports crude oil from Canada
2,150 miles What is Fracking? Extracts underground resources
Pumps chemicals into water wells
Halliburton Loophole In Conclusion Tore: Relatives in Oklahoma Economics vs. the Environment by: Sean, Trevor, and Tore On the environment: polluting waterways/sources/reserves
wetlands/forests--habitats that are occupied/cut through by pipeline
toxic waste ponds
promotes tar sand form of extraction
physically dig up the dirt with machinery
needs clear area to extract On the company: # of jobs increases....a lot
$$$ for trans-canada
lower gas prices
oil dependent lifestyle
increased competition between canada/middle east
efficiency of transportation Skit... Roles:
Trevor - Marshall Erikson - Environmentlist
Tore - Barney Onceler - Trans Canada rep.
Sean - Sean Umeda - Talk Show Host Pause.... Analysis of skit: Breakdown of the Video: "Things always find a way to happen"
Trouble = Oil & Gas companies
Language used : "Toxic chemicals in the drinking water", Take good water and mix it with not so good stuff", and "cancer causing chemicals"
"...you drink water, right?" The Keystone pipeline & Fracking KI: How do we know when the benefits outweigh the environmental costs when extracting natural resources for economic development? Our Connection final thoughts:
Why does Tore suck? What is your response to this movie? What emotions does this make you feel?
How does the language used shape your opinion? Let's look at some of the language and arguments used: Marshall Erikson:
"environmental catastrophe", "ruins the homes of innocent animals", etc.
logical fallacy - loaded question
Minimizes the problems with euphemisms
logical fallacy - appeal to authority
"TransCanada is providing the relief America’s economy needs" Final arguments made: "Why does the environment have to suffer for your greed of oil and money?
"Project XL will only bring more destruction and harm to the environment"
"As human beings our presence on this planet has been harmful ever since the industrialization of our civilization"
Marcellus Shale Coalition quote Extracting crude oil vs. Extracting natural gas Sean: Global Visionaries experience Trevor: Pro-environment Different perspectives Government Regulation Extraction of resources vs. Economic benefit